2025:HHC:41841 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.1086 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 Anshul Prashar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the respondents/ State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 26.07.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una, District Una, H.P., vide which the order passed by the Authorised Officer was upheld. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Surinder Kumar is a private contractor who was extracting resin at Kundian Forest Range. His registration was valid up to 31.12.2026. Forest Division, Dehra awarded a Resin Extraction tender to Surinder Kumar, which was valid from 09.04.2024 till 30.11.2024. Surinder Kumar hired the 2 2025:HHC:41841 petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. HP20H-8074 to transport resin tins from Mated Majhin to Hoshiarpur. It was known in the area that Surinder Kumar was a registered contractor and had been doing the work of resin extraction since 2014; hence, the petitioner agreed to transport the consignment. The petitioner’s vehicle was parked at Mawa Road, Kinnu, on the Bharwain Mubarkpur road. The forest officials made inquiries about the resin, and the petitioner informed them that the resin belonged to Surinder Kumar. The forest officials seized the vehicle and the resin despite the protests of the petitioner. A notice was served upon the petitioner, and he filed a detailed reply stating that the consignment of resin did not belong to him but belonged to Surinder Kumar, a registered contractor. The resin was private property under Section 52-3(A) (sic) of the Indian Forest Act, and the Forest Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice. Surinder Singh also made a statement to the police confirming that he had engaged the petitioner for the transportation of the resin. He had to obtain a permit for 259 tons of resin, but could not complete the formalities earlier. He had completed the formalities before visiting the police station, and he claimed 3 2025:HHC:41841 ownership of 259 tins of resin. The petitioner prayed for the withdrawal of the notice served upon him; however, this request was declined vide order dated 26.11.2024. The petitioner filed an appeal before a learned Additional Sessions judge, Una, District Una, which was dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I and Authorised Officer. It is asserted that resin was not the property of the state Government, and the Authorised Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice. Learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the appeal. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, and the order passed by the Authorised officer be set aside. 4. I have heard Mr Atul Jhingan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. 5. Mr Atul Jhingan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that an Authorised Officer acquires jurisdiction under 4 2025:HHC:41841 Section 52A (3) of the Indian Forest Act when the seized property belongs to the State Government. In the present case, the property belonged to Surinder Kumar. The Authorised officer erred in holding that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I failed to appreciate this aspect. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Authorised officer and judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I be set aside. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that Surinder Kumar could have only extracted about 12.30 qtls. (72 filled resin tins @17kg resin/tin) from the 1230 blazes allotted to him in two months. The resin seized by the police was much more than this. Hence, the plea that the resin belonged to Surinder Kumar is not correct. Section 69 of the Forest Act contains a presumption that the forest product belonged to the State. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption. The Authorised Officer and learned Sessions Judge were justified in discarding the plea taken by the petitioner that the resin did not belong to the State. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2025:HHC:41841 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Section 52A (1) and (2) of the Indian Forest Act, as amended in the State of H.P., reads as under: 52-A. Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where a forest-offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khairwood and katha, which is the property of the State Government, the Officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of section 52 without any unreasonable delay produce it, together with all tools, ropes chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence before an Officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, by notification published in the Official Gazette, not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer). (2) Where an authorised officer seizes under sub-section (1) of section 52 any timber (excluding fuelwood) resin, khairwood and katha, which is the property of the State Government, or where any such property is produced before an authorised officer under sub-section (1), once he is satisfied that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of such property, such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of the property so seized together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence….(emphasis supplied) 9. It was submitted that the property is to be owned by the State Government to attract the provisions of Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act. In the present case, Surinder Kumar 6 2025:HHC:41841 claimed the ownership of the resin; thus, the resin was not the property of the State Government, but a private property, and the Authorised Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. This submission cannot be accepted. The Authorised Officer specifically noticed in the order that Surinder Kumar was a registered contractor. Tapping permission was granted to him to extract the resin from 1230 blazes. The yield was fixed at 40 quintals per section for the period of eight months. Thus, he could have extracted 49.56 qtls during the whole season, which would end in November 2024. He could have extracted 12.30 qtls (72 filled resin tins @17kg resin/tin). Thus, he could not have extracted 259 resin tins. This is a pure finding of fact, and no infirmity is shown in it. Thus, prima facie, the plea that the resin belonged to Surinder Kumar is not established on record. 10. Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act provides that when any proceedings are taken under the Act, a question arises whether any forest produce is the property of the Government; such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the Government until the contrary is proved. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Harsh Gupta, (1998) 8 7 2025:HHC:41841 SCC 630, that the Court has to presume that the forest produce belongs to the State, and this presumption can be rebutted by leading evidence. It was observed at page 630: “3…. More surprising is that the learned Judge ignored the provisions of Section 69 of the Act, which expressly raises a statutory presumption against a person arraigned that the forest produce recovered from him was a property of the Government, until the contrary is proved; and needless to say, the question of proof of the contrary can be answered after evidence is led.” 11. Since Surinder Kumar could not have extracted 259 tins of resin, it has to be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that resin tins belong to the State. Hence, the learned Authorised Officer and learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una, had rightly held that there was nothing at this stage to show that the resin being transported by the petitioner was not the government property and the resin belonged to Surinder Kumar. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that the Authorised Officer proceeded without jurisdiction cannot be accepted as correct, and the proceedings pending before the Authorised Officer cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 12. No other point was urged. 8 2025:HHC:41841 13. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 14. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 04th December, 2025 (ravinder)