AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
The petitioner herein is the registered owner of a Pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-18-GA-2454. The said vehicle was apprehended
by staff of the Police Station Hamirwas, District Churu on 25.08.2013 while being driven by the petitioner himself and transporting raw khejri
wood (forest produce) without a transit permit. Accordingly, the petitioner was booked for the offences under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the
Rajasthan Forest Act and an FIR No.204/2013 was registered against him and the vehicle was seized.
In the criminal case registered against the petitioner, he stands convicted by the Gram Nyayalaya, Rajgarh, District Churu vide judgment dated
20.09.2013. While passing the said judgment, the trial court gave liberty to the competent forest officer to pass an order regarding confiscation or
otherwise of the offending vehicle as per the provisions of the Forest Act. In furtherance of the said direction, the Forest Officer-cum- ACF, Churu
passed an order dated 03.12.2013 and directed confiscation of the offending vehicle. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said order by
filing a revision No.10/2014 which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner vide order dated 21.05.2014. These two
orders are assailed in the instant writ petition.
Though the order of confiscation has been challenged on merits as well as on the so-called ground of infractions/shortcomings in the procedure
of confiscation but, while advancing the arguments and after considering the reply submitted by Shri S.R. Paliwal, Dy. G.C. on behalf of the Forest
Department, Shri Joshi candidly conceded that he does not have much to say on merits and thus, he pleaded that a reasonable view be taken and
the offending vehicle, which is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner, be released upon payment of apposite fine to be quantified by the
Court.
Shri S.R. Paliwal, learned Dy. Government Counsel, though vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner?s counsel but, he
too is not in a position to dispute that as per Section 68 of the Forest Act which reads as under:-
68.Power to compound offence.- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, empower a Forest Officer-
(a) to accept from any person against whom reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed any forest offence, other than an
offence specified in Section 62 or Section 63, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which such person is
suspected to have committed, and
(b) when any property has been seized as liable to confiscation, to release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by
such officer.
(2) On the payment of such sum of money, or such value, or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected person, if in
custody, shall be discharged, the property, if any seized shall be released, and no further proceeding shall be taken against such
person or property.
(3) A Forest Officer shall not be empowered under this section unless he is a Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger
and is in receipt of a monthly salary amounting to at least one hundred rupees, and the sum of money accepted as compensation
under clause (a) of subsection (1) shall in no case exceed the sum of fifty rupees.
Any property seized under the Forest Act and liable to be confiscated, can be released on payment of its estimated value. Manifestly thus, the
law provides for release of the property/ vehicle seized under the Forest Act on payment of its value which has to be assessed looking to its
condition. The quantification of the value has been left at the discretion of the authorised officer. In the case at hand, the authorised officer did not
consider this aspect of the matter and has passed a blanket order for confiscating the vehicle. No option was given to the petitioner to pay the
value of the vehicle in lieu of releasing the same. Needless to say that seized vehicle, which is reportedly lying in open condition exposed to
elements at the police station, is bound to lose its value and likely to become a junk because of exposure and by efflux of time and would result into
national wastage. Section 68 of the Forest Act, referred to supra, confers discretion with the Forest Officer to compound the offence and release
the confiscated vehicle upon deposition of the value thereof to be estimated by such officer.
As the vehicle was seized way back in the year 2013 and, since the authorised officer never made any estimation of the value thereof, this Court
feels that the ends of justice would be served while imposing a condition under Section 68(1)(b) of the Forest Act, 1953 that the offending vehicle
shall be released to the petitioner upon his depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the ACF, Churu. The impugned orders are modified accordingly.
With these observations and directions, the instant writ petition is partly allowed.