HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 716 of 2024 Shri Jabul Haq ……………..Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others ……..Respondents Presence:- Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority/ Conservator of Forest-Western Circle, Uttarakhand, Haldwani, District Nainital in Appeal No.214/2023- 24 “Shri Jabul Haq vs. State through Divisional Forest Officer”, whereby, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Authorised Officer/Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai West Forest Division, Ramnagar, District Nainital in range case No.23/Kashi./2022-23 “State vs. Shri Jabul Haq”, under Section 52A of the Indian Forest (Uttaranchal Amendment) Act, 2001. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner is the owner of a Dumper bearing Registration No.UP21CN-6169. The said vehicle is the only source of income of the petitioner and it is used by him to earn livelihood for his family. According to the Divisional Forest Officer on 23.08.2022, a joint team of employee of Tarai West Division, Ramnagar and 1 Kashipur range caught a vehicle (Dumper No.UP21CN-6169) illegally delivering those minerals without any transit pass and it was seized by a joint team of the said employee and a Forest Case as Range Case No.23/Kashi./2022-23 was registered against the vehicle, in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a joint team of the employee of Tarai West Division, Ramnagar and Kashipur range has seized the vehicle of the petitioner from a restaurant without any reason and took the transit pass of the vehicle in their possession. Subsequently, on the basis of seizure report, a case bearing Range Case No. 23/ Kashi./ 2022-23 was registered against the petitioner. He also submits that no challan has been imposed by any authority in the motor vehicle Vehicles Act against the alleged vehicle. He also submits that the petitioner and his vehicle was not involved in any illegal mining whatsoever. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of the aforesaid fact, after issuance of notice, the petitioner has put in appearance and submitted his statement in the form of an affidavit admitting his guilt and was agreeable to compound the offence as per Section 68 of the Act and the petitioner is still ready to deposit the fine, so imposed, by the respondents authorities. Evenafter the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner the respondent no.2 vide order dated 22.02.2024, finally decided the case and has passed an unwarranted, unusual, 2 arbitrary order in mechanical manner thereby ordering to confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner under Section 52A of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001 without considering the facts deposed before him and the Appellate Authority i.e. Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Haldwani, District Nainital, under Section 52-B of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001 has also confirmed the aforesaid order in the Appeal. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has erred in law by not recording any findings to show that the vehicle in question or the petitioner was involved in commission of crime of the Forest Act. 5. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 relying upon the counter affidavit submits that the joint team of Tarai West Division, Ramnagar and Kashipur range caught the alleged vehicle while carrying minor minerals illegally and without a valid transit pass and thereafter, a case was registered under relevant provisions of law. He further submits that due compliance of Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (as amended in relation to the State of Uttaranchal by Act 10 of 2002) was done, therefore, after the dismissal of appeal, the alleged vehicle vests with State Government free from all encumbrances u/s 60(2) of the Forest Act. 6. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the Uttarakhand Amendment of the Indian Forest Act 1927 incorporated by amending Uttaranchal act 3 No.10 of 2002 required to be appreciated. For ready reference, Section 52, 52-A(1), (4), (5) and Section 52- B of the Forest Act are quoted herein below:- “52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation. (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains or other articles used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. (2) Any Forest Officer or Police Officer may, if he has reason to believe that a boat or vehicle has been, or is being, used for the transport of any forest produce in respect of which a forest offence has been, or is being, committed, require the driver or other person in charge of such boat or vehicle to stop it, and he may detain such boat or vehicle for such reasonable time as is necessary to examine the contents in such boat or vehicle and to inspect the records relating to the goods transported so as to ascertain the claims, if any, of the driver or other person incharge of such boat or vehicle regarding the ownership and legal origin of the forest produce in question. (3) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made, and if the seizure is in respect of forest produce which is the property of the State Government, shall also make a report to the authorised officer." Provided that, when the forest-produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government, and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior. 52-A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other taw for the time being in force, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest produce, which Is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing 4 the property under sub-section (1) of section 52 shall, without unreasonable delay, produce it together with all the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles used in committing the offence before an officer, not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, who may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order in writing with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property, and in case of tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles, may also confiscate them. (4) No order under sub-section (1) shall be made without giving notice, in writing, to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorised officer to have some interest in such property: Provided that in an order confiscating a vehicle, when the offender is not traceable, a notice in writing to the registered owner thereof and considering his objections if any, will suffice. (5) No order of confiscation of any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, ropes, chain or other article shall be made if any person referred to in sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that any such tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, as the case may be, and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for the commission of the forest offence. 52-B Appeal- Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may, within thirty days of the date of communication to him of such order, prefer an appeal to the Conservator of Forests of the circle who shall, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and the authorised officer, pass such order as it may think fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against and the order of the Conservator of the Forests of the circle shall be final.” 7. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is evidently clear that a complete procedure has been prescribed for seizure, confiscation and appeal against the confiscation order. The defence is available to the owner of the 5 vehicle against the order of confiscation under Section 52-A(5) of the Forest Act. It provides the owner to take a defence that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, as the case may be, and all the reasonable precautions has been taken against use of the vehicle for the commission of forest offence. Here in the case in hand, no such defence has been taken by the petitioner, except to say that he has been falsely implicated with the forest offence. The petitioner himself has admitted the offence and requested for compounding it under Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. In this background, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 52-B of the Forest Act was also dismissed by the appellate authority. After the dismissal of the appeal and after confiscation of the vehicle in-question in view of Section 60(2) of the Forest Act, the vehicle became the property of the Government. In this background, when the petitioner is no longer owner of the vehicle in-question and it vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances, no order for release of the vehicle in- question can be passed. 8. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the conditions enumerated in Section 52-A (1) and (4) of Forest Act viz. (i). forwarding the forest produce along with the vehicle involved in Forest Offence to a Officer not below the reach of DFO (ii). issuance of notice in writing to the 6 person from whom the vehicle has been confiscated, have been duly followed by the concerned officials during confiscation and after the dismissal of appeal vide order dated 22.05.2024, the property now vests in the State Government under Section 60(2) of the Forest Act. Petitioner no longer is owner of the vehicle. Therefore, this is not a fit case, in which the interference is required by this Court. Both the impugned orders are affirmed. It is free to the State to deal with the confiscated vehicle No.UP21CN-6169 in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.07.2025 Ravi 7