Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
(63) Section 56, 2(g) (ii) - Confiscation proceedings - Whether sal leaves are forest produce when they are not found in or brought from the forest ? - As per Sec. 2(g)(ii) of the Act, only when sal leaves are found in or brought from the forest, they are forest produce - In the instant case the vehicle in question was intercepted on N.H.5 - Nowhere in the seizure list and the statement attached to the P.R. there is any mention that these sal leaf plates were found in or brought from any forest - Applying the ratio (2006 (II) OLR 109) held, seized sal leaf plates do not come within the purview of Sec. 2(g) of the Act and the seizure made by the forest officials was illegal and arbitrary - Confiscation proceeding quashed : 2010 (II) OLR 911 : (2010) 47 OCR 976. (64) Section 56, Sub-Sec. 2(a), 2(d), 2(e) - Petitioner being a licence holder under the Act, a truck carrying finished goods was seized and confiscated by the authorised officer - The articles and truck was released after enquiry - On an appeal, the Conservator directed a fresh enquiry - On a direction by the Conservator, the DFO confiscated the articles - The Conservator can exercise supervisory or revisional power by calling for records and examining the same if the authorised officer has ordered confiscation - This power can be exercised within thirty days of such confiscation, but no power of appeal is vested in him - Confiscation or non-confiscation order is appellable only to the District Judge - Hence such order of confiscation is without Jurisdiction - 1998(II) OLR-646. (65) A truck was confiscated - District Judge heard the appeal who is also the Sessions Judge - But when the appeal was disposed of, he signed it as the sessions Judge - It was held that this is not a case of lack of jurisdiction, as he was empowered to have as the District Judge and decided the same in the said capacity - The said order does not become illegal merely because he signed the same as a Sessions Judge. It has been the settled law that an order passed by a competent authority cannot be negatived simply because it purports to have been made under a wrong provision and the validity of an order is to be judged on a consideration of its substance - In P. Rajakothaith Vrs. Union of India- AIR 1950 SC-232 and Hukumchand and Mills Ltd. Vrs. State of M.P.- AIR 1954 SC-1929, the Supreme Court has made this point clear as follows :- 44 On an interpretation of the relevant provisions, the Court held that it is permissible to pass an order for payment of fine in lieu of or instead of confiscation - It was found that the truck involved is of 1961 model and is the only source of income of the petitioner and his family. The illegally carried forest products value was about Rs.6,000.00. It was felt that a fine of Rs.15,000.00 in line of confiscation would serve ends of justice - 1994(1) OLR-276. (66) Section 56(1) and (2-a), and Section 85 - A vehicle can only be confiscated if there is satisfaction of the vehicle being used for commission of forest offence - It means that there must be a direct connection in between the vehicle and the forest produce - Only because of the fact that a car was moving ahead of the truck carrying forest produce, it cannot be said to be involved in forest offence and cannot be confiscated and can also not be said to have abated such offence under Sec. 85 of the Act - 1993(II) OLR - 295.