LexMOHD. ASHIQUE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 16 S.C.R. 136 ' ~ .. A MOHD. ASHIQUE · \/. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2008) B NOVEMBER 18, 2008 ' ' [DR. ARIJIT PAS,AYAT AND DR. MUKUNDA.KAM ""'\ . SHARMA, JJ.] Indian Forest Act, 1927 - ss.61, 61A to 61G - Forest c bffence - Transportation of illicitly felled wood - Confiscation of offending vehicle - Challenge to - Held: Not tenable - Provisions for confiscation have been made as a deterrent object so that felling of trees and deforestation is not made. D The truck of Appellant was confiscated by the ' Maharashtra forest officials under s.61A of the Indian • Forest Act, 1927 after it was allegedly found involved in the forest offence of transporting illicitly felled wood. Appellant challenged the order of confiscation but his E plea was dismissed by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that the Courts below did not appreciate the factual position in the proper perspective and there was no evidence to ? F prove that he was personally involved in the changes or alterations in the transit passes as alleged. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1. While considering the present controversy, the purpose behind enacting the Indian Forest Act, 1927 cannot be ignored or allowed to be defeated. Forest is a national wealth which is required td be preserved. The State is enjoined with a duty to· H 136 MOHD. ASHIQUE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 137 > ~ pre!!,erve the forest so as to maintain ecological balance A and, thus, with a view to achieve the said object, forest must be given due protection. The provisions for confiscation have been made as a deterrent object so that felling of trees and deforestation is not made. [Para 6] [141-C, G, H; 142-A·C] B • ~ 1.2. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case which is stated to be pending. The truck which has been taken c by the Respondent shall be sold in public auction and the money shall be deposited by the concerned Forest Officer in fixed deposit account. Whether the money is to be confiscated or to be returned to the appellant shall be decided in the proceedings. [Para 7] [142-0] D 1' ~ Stat.e of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana AIR (2004) SC 1851, relied on. Case Law Reference : AIR (2004) SC 1851 relied on Para 6 E CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.4.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur F in Criminal Writ Petition No. 432 of 2002. Manish Pitale and Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. -- Madhavi Diwan and Ravindra Keshavrao for the G Respondent. ""'· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. H 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The appellant, the owner of motor vehicle i.e. a truck bearing B registration No.MH-30-B-2897 challenged the order of confiscation passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest (Authorised Officer) under section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short the 'Act'). The truck was found involved in forest offence on 7.1.1999. It was found that illicitly felled Nimb Wood c and Katsawar wood were being transported. The order of confiscation under Section 61-A of the Act was challenged in appeal under Section 61-D of the Act which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola. While admitting the writ petition, the High Court stayed both the orders and directed 0 _release of the truck in favour of the appellant subject to certain conditions. 2. Factual backgr9urid as stated by the appellant is as follows: E According to him truck belongs to him and he had engaged one Mohd. Shabbir, resident of Medshi for transportation of timber on 07.01.1999. That timber was transported accordingly to Geeta Saw Mill belonging to Gangaram Manaji Patel of Kolhapur as per transit pass and F as per law. Appellant thereafter learnt that on or about 08.01.1999 the officers of the Forest Department seized said timber including Katsawar from Geeta Saw Mill. Thereafter without any re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.