Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010247272023 2025:GAU-AS:5920 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1183/2023 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, ASSAM 2: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER-CUM-AUTHORIZED OFFICER SONITPUR EAST DIVISION BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST.- BISWANATH ASSA VERSUS MD. NAZIBULLAH RAHMAN SON OF GAJIUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORJHARONI, PS- GINGIA, DIST.- BISWANATH, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D GOGOI, MR. P N GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A B T HAQUE, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 14.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Page No.# 2/3 1973 challenging the Order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Biswanath Chariali in Misc. Appeal No.02 (S-3)/2022. 3. A vehicle bearing registration No.AS32C1279 was seized by the Forrest Officials, when it was carrying sawn timber. Thereafter, under the provisions of Section 49 (1) of the Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891, the said vehicle was confiscated to the State. On being aggrieved by the said decision of the Authorized Officer-Cum-Divisional Forrest Officer, Sonitpur East Division, Biswanath Chariali, the petitioner filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.02 (S-3)/2022 before the learned District Judge, Biswanath Chariali under the provisions of Section 49 (C) of the said Regulation Act of 1891. The learned District Judge set aside the order of confiscation and directed that the seized vehicle should be given to the present petitioner on taking a bond of Rs.40,00,000/-. 4. On being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Sessions Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the Forest Department. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent after taking financial assistance from financial institution. According to Mr. Borbhuiya, the respondent did not have any knowledge that the vehicle was carrying illegal Forest products. 5. At this point, the learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Special Leave Appeal (Crl.) No.3129/2023. In that case, like the present situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that normally in such a circumstance the vehicle should not be returned to a party, till culmination of all proceedings. 6. The Apex Court held that only for exceptional reasons, the vehicle can be released. Page No.# 3/3 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. 8. In the present case, the respondent being the owner of the vehicle did not have the prior knowledge that his driver was using the vehicle for illegal purpose by carrying prohibited forest products. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that for non-payment of installments to the financial institution a criminal case has also been filed against the present respondent. 10. Now this Court is of the opinion that the learned District Judge had correctly passed the impugned order. This order does not require any interference in of this Court. 11. Therefore, the present Criminal Petition stands dismissed and disposed of. 12. The interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. 13. The seized vehicle shall be given in custody of its registered owner on taking a bond of Rs.50,000/-. 14. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant