Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010110652019 2025:GAU-AS:5166 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3386/2019 SANJEET PATEL S/O- LT BINDU PATEL, R/O- C/O- HINDUSTAN HOTEL, GHORAPATI, GOLAGHAT ROAD, DIMAPUR, STATE-NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF FOREST, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GHY DIST- KAMRUP (M) PIN- 781037 3:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER-CUM-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER GOLAGHAT DIVISION DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621 4:RANGE FOREST OFFICER (T) GOLAGHAT RANGE WARD NO. 2 P.O. AND DIST- GOLAGHAT PIN- 78562 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P BHATTACHARYA, M ALI,MR D J BORO,MR N A MAZARBHUIYA,MR N Z CHOUDHURY,MR. A R BHUYAN,MR. J K GOSWAMI,MS M Page No.# 2/6 DAS,MR. M BISWAS,MR. A BHATTACHARYYA,MR. A BORUA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 31.10.2017, passed by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Golaghat Division in Case No. G/24; whereby, the petitioner’s truck bearing Registration No. NL-01L-1192 was confiscated for being used for transportation of Forest produce without proper documentation. The petitioner has further presented a challenge to the order dated 29.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Misc (Crl.) Case No. 6/2018, dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner for condonation of the delay in preferring an appeal invoking the provisions of Section 49-b of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (as amended) along with the order dated 29.03.2019, dismissing the connected criminal appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 41/2018. 3. The petitioner projects that he is the registered owner of a truck bearing No. NL-01L-1192. The said truck, on being found to be involved in illegal transportation of forest produce, the same was confiscated by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Golaghat Division vide order dated 31.10.2017 along with the pine fire wood being transported therein. The petitioner, being aggrieved by Page No.# 3/6 the said order of confiscation dated 31.10.2017, had approached the Sessions Judge, Golaghat by way of instituting Criminal Appeal No. 41/2018. As there was a delay in institution of the said criminal appeal, the petitioner had instituted Misc (Crl.) Case No. 6/2018 for condonation of the delay occasioning in instituting the connected criminal appeal. The matter was thereafter, transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat and the Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat vide the order dated 29.03.2019, on considering the issues arising in the matter and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, was pleased to dismiss the Misc (Crl.) Case No. 6/2018, refusing to condone the delay of 218 days in filing the connected criminal appeal. The Misc (Crl.) Case No. 6/2018 having been so dismissed, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 29.03.2019 also proceeded to dismiss the criminal appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 41/2018. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition was instituted by the petitioner praying for the reliefs as noticed herein above. 4. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs Philo Kumar Deori, [Judgment & Order dated 26.06.2023 in (Crl. Pet./1060/2022)] to contend that the Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat did not have jurisdiction to consider the Misc (Crl.) Case No. 6/2018 and the Criminal Appeal No. 41/2018 and the same was mandatorily required to be so considered by the District Judge, Golaghat. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on examining similar claim raised by the parties therein, had drawn the following conclusions: - “15. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the cited rulings. In the instant case, the impugned order of Page No.# 4/6 interim custody has been passed in an appeal under Section 49 (c) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. Even a cursory perusal of the said provision would reveal without any ambiguity that any person aggrieved by an order under section 49(4) or 49-B of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 may within 30 days from the date of communication to him of such order prefer an appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized. It also appears, that it is the District Judge, who after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties may pass such order either varying, confirming, modifying, annuling on setting aside the order appealed against and the order of the court so passed shall be final. Thus, Section 49 (c) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 in unambiguous terms gives appellate jurisdiction, against an order of confiscation, passed under section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 by the authorised officer, only to the District Judge and none else. As observed by hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Superintendent of Police, Manipur and Ors. –Vs- R. K. Tomalsana Singh (Dead) by ”(Supra) when the power is conferred by statute on the statutory authority and as such the said power can be exercised by that authority alone and the factum that one person is exercising two separate authorities is a irrelevant. 16. In the instant case also, though the appeal under Section 49 (c) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 was filed by the present respondent in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, however, on perusal of the record of Criminal Appeal No. 02/2022 would reveal that all the orders passed in the said appeal were by learned Sessions Judge Kamrup, Amingaon. This, in the considered opinion of this court may not be regarded as a mere irregularity, which may be cured by Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as both the courts, that is, the court of District Judge and the court of Sessions Judge are created by two different statutes and they exercise different jurisdictions. Moreover, in an appeal before District Judge, the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Civil Courts Rules and Orders of Gauhati High Court would be applicable, whereas, in an appeal before Sessions Judge the provisions of the Chapter 2 of Gauhati High Court Criminal Rules and Orders would be applicable. It is also not clear as to why the appeal preferred under Section 49 (c) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 was registered as a Criminal Appeal, whereas, considering the fact that the appeal lies before the District Page No.# 5/6 Judge, it ought to have been registered as a Miscellaneous Appeal. 17. Though, criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings and each have a distinct purpose and the confiscated property vest in state after confiscation, however, as held by this Court in “Binod Kabra vs State of Assam & others” (Order dated 08/10/2013 passed in WP(C)-5537/2008) under the scheme of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 confiscation made under Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 is really a seizure or retention of the seized property in the conclusion of criminal proceedings where after section 51 of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 comes into play in case the prosecution ends in conviction and confiscation is ordered by the convicting court. 18. In the instant case, as discussed hereinbefore, the confiscation order, in respect of seized vehicle bearing registration number AS 23 BC 6214, made under section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, by the authorised 2023 officer, has being challenged in appeal under Section 49 (c) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 by the respondent. However, as all the orders in the said appeal, including the impugned order, has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, which is apparently without jurisdiction, hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly same is set aside.” 7. On a perusal of the said conclusions drawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Philo Kumar Deori (supra), this Court is in respectful agreement with the same and accordingly, on applying the said decision to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that on an order of confiscation of the vehicle in question being passed an appeal therefrom is permissible to be so preferred before the jurisdictional District Judge, in terms of the provisions of Regulation 49(4) of Regulation 49-b of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. The provisions of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, in this connection, having conferred jurisdiction only on the jurisdictional District Judge to consider an appeal against an order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer under the provisions of the Regulation of 1891 and it being a settled position of law that when a power is conferred by a Statute on a Statutory Page No.# 6/6 Authority, the said power can be exercised by that authority only. In the instant case, though the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Regulation of 1891, was so preferred before the Court of the Sessions Judge at Golaghat, this Court is of the considered view that the same ought to have been preferred before the District Judge, Golaghat. 8. In view of the above position and following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Philo Kumar Deori (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the orders both dated 29.03.2019, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Misc (Crl.) Case No. 6/2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 41/2018 is required to be interfered with and accordingly, the same are set aside. The matter is now remanded back to the District Judge, Golaghat, for a fresh consideration by re-numbering the Criminal Appeal No. 41/2018 as a Miscellaneous Appeal and also by re-numbering Misc. (Crl.) Case No. 6/2018. 9. The learned District Judge, Golaghat shall also consider the application submitted by the petitioner for condonation of delay and basing on the decision therein would proceed to consider the appeal so preferred in the matter by the petitioner. The District Judge, Golaghat is requested to expeditiously consider the application for condonation of delay as well as the Criminal Appeal. 10. It is to be noted that this Court has not considered the merit of the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the matter nor has examined the order dated 31.10.2017, passed by the Authorized Officer, on merits. 11. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant