Mohar Lal Mahto vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent no. 3- Divisional Forest officer, East Division, Ramgarh for release of his vehicle bearing registration number JH-02H-6400 seized on 25.2.2011 during the pendency of the Confiscation Case No. 16 of 2011 initiated against the said vehicle for the alleged violation of Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is lying in the open air and is subjected to natural decay, deterioration in value. In such circumstances the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat, page 283 and submits that it has been held that the valuable articles as well as vehicles seized in respect of offence should not be kept in custody for a very long period. The vehicle owner, in case, approaches for release of the same, prompt action should be taken after preparing necessary Panchnama in case it is required, steps shall be taken for identification and also for recording evidence and adopt other appropriate treasures, so that in the event the property is subjected to natural decay the evidence is available during proceedings. The concerned authority should also take appropriate steps to release the vehicles in favour of the petitioner/owner after taking adequate security and also indemnity bond or whatever other safety measures as it thinks proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the petitioner has also relied Upon judgments of the Learned Single Judge of this Court vide Annexure-4 series in W.P.C. No. 247 of 2006 dated August, 2006 and W.P.C. No. 5507 of 2011 dated 17.11.2011 to support his aforesaid contention.

Counsel for the respondent- Stare has appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent-State on merit that the petitioner''s vehicle was found involved in forest offence in respect of which a confiscation proceeding has been initiated and petitioner has straightway moved this Court for release of the said vehicle, though there is hierarchy of appeal and revision against the order of the original authority. Moreover, no final order has been passed in the confiscation case no. 16 of 2011, either.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has made application before the respondent no. 3 for release of such vehicle during the pendency of the proceeding, but no order has been passed, thereupon.

I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. As would appear from the submissions of the parties, vehicle no. JH-02H-6400 has been subjected to confiscation proceeding before the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh in Confiscation Case No. 16 of 2011 for alleged violation of the provision of Indian Forest Act, 1927. Petitioner undertakes to provide adequate security as also other measures as may be required by the Confiscation Authority for release of such vehicle during the pendency of the proceeding as the sole object is to ensure that the vehicle, during the pendency of the proceeding is not subjected to natural decay.

In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to once again move an application before the confiscation authority- respondent no. 3, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. It may cause preparation of necessary panchnama, steps for identification of the vehicle as also adopting other appropriate measures, so that in the event the vehicle is subjected to natural decay the evidence is available during the proceeding. The confiscation authority shall also take adequate security/indemnity bond and other safety measures in the circumstance while permitting such release of vehicle. The aforesaid exercise be done within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.