High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 04 JH CK 0065

MD. MOHSIN SHEIKH vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 April 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) No. 4094 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 292 words
1.

Aggrieved of order dated 27.11.2002 passed in Revision Case No.ÂCÂ16 of 2002 by which the revisional authority has setÂaside the appellate

order dated 08.11.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2.

Briefly stated, on 02.01.1997 a truck loaded with boulders was confiscated on the ground that it was not carrying a valid challan. The confiscating

officer vide its order dated 01.12.1997 has ordered confiscation of the truck bearing no. BRÂ35HÂ0191 along with the handÂbroken boulders. The

petitioner has denied that he had any knowledge of the truck operating without valid challan and it was seized within the forest area carrying illegal

boulders. The petitioner has further pleaded that in the criminal case, he has been acquitted of the criminal charges framed against him. The

appellate authority by an order dated 08.11.2001 has held that the truck was seized outside the forest area and the oppositeÂparty has failed to

establish that it was infact seized within the forest area. The appellate order has been interfered by the revisional authority without concluding that the

aforesaid finding recorded by the appellate authority is perverse, or that the department has produced indisputable document to establish that the truck

along with boulders was seized within the forest area. The revisional authority was not exercising a jurisdiction larger than the one conferred upon the

appellate authority, which can adjudicate the questions of fact as well as law.

3.

In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.11.2002, it is setÂ​aside. The writ petition stands allowed.

                                     Â