Kishan Lal vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The High Court directed the respondent Forest Department to serve a notice initiating confiscation proceedings upon the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petitioner is required to appear before the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Chittorgarh, on November 3, 2022, and submit his reply or representation, along with relevant documents, to object to the proposed confiscation. The Assistant Conservator of Forest is then obligated to consider the petitioner's representation and documents in accordance with the law before passing a final order regarding the confiscation proceedings. The Court reserved the petitioner's right to pursue legal remedies under the Forest Act against any confiscation order. The petition and stay application were disposed of accordingly. The core reasoning was that the petitioner had not been properly notified of the confiscation proceedings, which impacted the legality of the lower courts' decisions to deny the release application.

Facts

The petitioner, Kishan Lal, sought the release of a vehicle and timber seized by the police on suspicion of illegal transportation. The petitioner filed an application under Sections 451 & 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the release of the seized items on supurdaginama. The trial court rejected the application, noting that confiscation proceedings had been initiated under the Forest Act. The revisional court affirmed this decision, observing that confiscation proceedings were initiated on March 15, 2022. The petitioner contended that he had not received any notice regarding these confiscation proceedings, rendering the lower courts' rejection of his release application legally unjustified, especially since the timber was purchased with a GST invoice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned courts below were legally justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for the release of the seized vehicle and timber on supurdaginama, given that the petitioner claimed to have not received any notice regarding the initiation of confiscation proceedings under the Forest Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the lower courts erred in rejecting his application for the release of the vehicle and timber because he had not been served with any notice or intimation about the initiation of confiscation proceedings. He emphasized that the timber was purchased through a proper GST invoice, implying legitimate acquisition. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Rajasthan and Assistant Forest Officer) in response to the petitioner's claims regarding the lack of notice. The lower courts' decisions, as affirmed by the revisional court, were based on the initiation of confiscation proceedings.