Faijul Hoque vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Held

The High Court held that the impugned orders of the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer and the Additional Sessions Judge did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The Court found that the procedure followed was in accordance with Section 49(5) of the Assam Forest Regulation, which mandates issuing notices to the registered owner and affording an opportunity for representation. The Court noted that the petitioner had received notices and had an opportunity to reply, which he did. The Court distinguished the present case, which was a criminal revision under Sections 397/401/482 of the CrPC, from writ jurisdiction cases cited by the petitioner, stating that its scope was limited to examining legality, propriety, and correctness. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan, State of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai, emphasizing that vehicles used in forest offenses are generally not released until proceedings culminate, and that confiscation proceedings are distinct from criminal prosecution, serving as a deterrent. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Faijul Hoque, is challenging the confiscation of his vehicle (Registration No. AS-17B-9317) and teak logs. On August 12, 2018, forest officials intercepted the vehicle carrying teak logs from Mizoram. The logs were found unmarked and with discrepancies in quantity and measurement compared to the Transit Pass (T.P.). The driver fled, and the logs and vehicle were seized. Notices were issued to alleged owners and the driver. The petitioner, identified as the actual owner, received notices and claimed he was unaware of the illegal transportation, stating he had given permission for transportation after verification and GST compliance. The Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar, confiscated the logs and the vehicle under Section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995, finding the owner had not exercised due precaution. The petitioner's appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar, Silchar, was dismissed, upholding the confiscation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the confiscation of the vehicle and teak logs by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar, was illegal and perverse, violating Section 49(5)(b)(c) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, due to alleged non-receipt of notices in Form No. 31A, 31B, 31C, and 31D by the petitioner, thereby denying him an opportunity to present his defence? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the grounds for seizure were false and fabricated, that no forest offense was committed as the logs were carried under a valid transit pass, and that the increase in log count was due to cutting for convenience. He contended that he never received the required notices (Form 31A, 31B, 31C, 31D) and thus was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his defence, making the confiscation illegal. He also claimed ignorance of the incident as his vehicle was sent for potato transportation and the driver loaded logs without his knowledge. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the Revenue/State. However, it implies that the Authorized Officer followed due procedure and that the confiscation was justified based on the findings of illegal timber transportation and lack of due precaution by the owner.