STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus GOPAL SARKAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 07-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA, P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
GOPAL SARKAR 
NOVEMBER 7, 2001 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Forest Act, .1927 : 
S. 59-A(3)(as amended by West Bengal Amendment 1988)-Forest of-
C 
fence-Confiscation of tools and implements used in committing offence-Logs 
of timber illegally felled and removed from forest area-Confiscation of alongwith 
tools and implements used in committing offence-Order not challenged in 
appeal as provided in the Act but challenged in a petition under Article 227 of 
Constitution and under s.482 Cr.P.C.-High Court setting aside the order 
relying upon its earlier decision wherein it was held that proceedings for 
D 
confiscation of machineries and/or saw mill, cannot be held valid in terms of 
s.59A(3) as saw mill cannot be treated as a property of State Government-
Held, if tools, machines, vehicles etc. seized were used in commission of forest 
offence it is open to authorized officer to pass order of confiscation-Author-
ised Officer clearly recorded a finding that he was satisfied that band saw and 
E 
implements were used in commission offorestoffence-lhisfinding remained 
undisturbed-High Court erred in relying upon its earlier decision and in 
setting aside the order of confiscation-Constitution of India-Article 227-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 402. 
Divisional Forest Officer and Another v. G. V. Sudhakar Rao and Ors., 
F 
AIR (1986) SC 328, relied on. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1143 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.2000 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Crl. R. No. 558 of 2000. 
Tapesh Ray and Salish Vig for the Appellant. 
P.N. Mishra, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand and Abhijit Sengupta for the 
H 
Respondent. 
212 
-
STATEv.GOPALSARKAR 
213 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
The judgment of the learned single judge of Calcutta High Court in C.R. 
No. 558 of 2000 setting aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer under 
the Indian Forest Act (as amended in the State of West Bengal), confiscating 
certain tools and implements, is under challenge in this appeal filed by the State 
of West Bengal. 
In a raid made by the Deputy Ranger of Moraghat Forest Range, on 
29. 7.1998 the premises of the saw mill of the. respondent, II pieces of Garnmer, 
TOon, Sisso, logs measuring 1.054 meters alongwith band saw and other 
· implements were seized on the allegation that the forest produce (logs of 
timber) were illegally felled and removed out of the forest area without valid 
permission and transit permit and the band saw and other implements were 
used in commission of the forest offence. After completing the procedure 
prescibed under the statute the authorised Officer-cum-Division Officer, 
Jalpaiguri District, by the order dated 11.2.2000 ordered confiscation of the 
forest produce (logs of timber) together with the band saw and implements. The 
order was passed in exercise of the power vested in the authority under Sec. 
59-A(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (West Bengal Amendment 1988) 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Authorise_d Officer recorded the 
finding to the effect : 
"In view of the facts stated above, I am satisfied that the timber in 
~espect of which the offence has taken place is the property of the State 
Government and the cutting impements (tools) i.e. Band Saw etc. was 
used in committing a Forest offence & also to conceal the timber by 
way of changing the identity of timber in question which is liable to 
be confiscated to the State as per provision of Section 59-A(3) of the 
Indian Forest Act, 1927 (West Bengal Amendment, 1988). Further till 
this date nobody has come forward to claim the timber in question, had 
it been a genuine timber there must have been some claimant" 
Summing up his finding in the proceedings he passed the order on the 
following terms : 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"Whereas I am satisfied that a Forest Offence has been committed in 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C:.R. 
respect of forest produce which is the property of the State Govern-
ment and the registered owner of Band Saw which has been used as_ 
cutting tools and used in commission of said forest offence, has failed · 
to prove to my satisfaction that the same was not used without the 
knowledge or connivance of himself, or his agent or person in charge 
of the Band saw and that he failed to prove that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.