State of Maharashtra vs Rajendra

P.B. Varale, J.—By consent of Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahangadale, learned counsel for the respondent, the petition is heard finally by admitting the same. The petitioner/State through Authorized Officer and Prakasth Eviction Officer i.e. Confiscating Officer, Bhandara, is before this Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, dated 24.4.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2012, thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the present respondent.

The facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follows:

On 24.4.2011 in the late hours i.e. at about 9.30 p.m. the patrolling squad of the petitioner/authorized officer apprehended a vehicle i.e. a tractor and a trolly. It was found that driver of the vehicle was not having any valid permit and was carrying the property namely 59 logs of teakwood. After initial enquiry, they came to know that the accused were carrying the material illegally. Therefore, they seized the tractor, trolley and teakwood and necessary panchanama was drawn. The teak wood was not having hammer mark or other mark. The statements were recorded by the competent officer. The Authorized Officer i.e. Prakashth Eviction Officer, on the basis of the material and the statements recorded, formulated a question in respect of the teakwood being illegally carried in the vehicle and as such, attracting the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. The Authorized Officer passed the judgment and order dated 07.08.2012, thereby directing confiscation of the tractor and trolley to the Government and auction of the teakwood after compliance of necessary formalities. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge. Bhandara u/s 61D of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the rival parties arrived at a conclusion that the Authorized Officer failed to follow the provisions of Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, which is a mandatory provision i.e. making immediate report of the seizure to the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge found that as there was no material placed on record in respect of compliance of Section 52 of the Act, the order passed by the Confiscating Officer is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed thereby quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Confiscating Officer dated 07.08.2012 and granting liberty to the present respondent i.e. appellant before him, to move an application for releasing the property on Supratnama before the competent officer or before the competent Court, in whose jurisdiction the alleged offence was committed, in view of Section 53 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Feeling aggrieved by said judgment and order of the Sessions Court, the petitioner is before this Court.

Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in passing the impugned order. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has neither called for the record from the Authorized Officer nor granted any opportunity to the petitioner to place on record the necessary documents, such as report submitted to the learned Magistrate etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by producing a pursis in this Court, submitted that the report was immediately forwarded to the learned Magistrate on the next day of the incident i.e. 25.04.2011 in compliance with Section 52 of the Act. Along with the Pursis, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record a copy of the communication dated 25.04.2011, forwarded by the concerned officer to the Competent Authority and the Assistant Range Forest Officer, Bhandara. Perusal of said communication reveals that a report was forwarded to the learned Magistrate and the Competent Authority was in turn informed about the report to the learned Magistrate and requested not to pass orders as the report is submitted to the learned Magistrate.

Perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed in the appeal show that neither any opportunity was granted to the petitioner nor the learned Sessions Judge called for any record for his satisfaction. On the backdrop of the fact that there is a prima facie material to show that the matter was reported to the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned judgment and order and remanding the matter to the learned Sessions Judge. Bhandara with a direction to him to pass orders afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place on record the material and at the same time opportunity to the respondent of hearing. As the matter revolves around the valuable forest produce, by such an exercise, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties.

In the result the criminal writ petition is allowed.

The judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, dated 24.4.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2012, is set aside.

Matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara for passing the orders afresh, by giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today.

With these directions, criminal writ petition is disposed of.