Devendra Kumar Yadav vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of confiscation and the appellate judgment did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Regarding the first issue, the Court implicitly agreed with the lower appellate court that the petitioner failed to prove to the satisfaction of the forest officials that the vehicle was used in the commission of a forest offense without his knowledge or connivance, thus justifying the confiscation. On the second and third issues, the Court noted the provisions of Section 49(5) of the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995, which require notice and an opportunity to be heard. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on whether notices were properly served or if an opportunity to adduce evidence was denied, but the overall dismissal suggests these were not found to be fatal flaws. The Court also referenced Supreme Court judgments (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Kallo Bai, State of West Bengal & Ors. Sujit Kumar Rana) which establish that confiscation proceedings are independent of criminal prosecution and that vehicles used in forest offenses are generally not released until the culmination of proceedings. The Court found the petitioner's arguments devoid of substance and that the question of releasing the vehicle in interim custody did not arise as it had already been confiscated. The ratio decidendi is that confiscation proceedings under forest laws are distinct from criminal proceedings, and the owner must prove due precaution and lack of knowledge to avoid confiscation, a burden the petitioner failed to meet.

Facts

The petitioner, Devendra Kumar Yadav, challenged an order confiscating his vehicle (Registration No. NL-01K-5990) and a subsequent appellate order upholding the confiscation. The vehicle was intercepted on August 12, 2019, carrying teak logs without proper markings and with a doubtful transit pass (T.P.). Upon verification, the number of logs differed from the T.P., and many were unmarked. The driver fled. The petitioner claimed he was unaware of the illegal activity, stating he had given permission to his driver, Md. Malek Astam, to transport teak logs after proper verification and documentation, including GST. He stated he was unaware of forest rules. The Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, confiscated the vehicle under Section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995, finding the petitioner did not exercise due precaution. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Silchar, who found the petitioner failed to prove the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the confiscation order dated 17.01.2020, passed by the Authorized Officer, is bad in law for being passed without application of mind and without a forest offense being committed, given the existence of a transit pass dated 08.08.2018 (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995). 2. Whether the petitioner received proper notices in Form No. 31A, 31B, 31C, and 31D, and was afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, making the confiscation proceeding illegal and contrary to Section 49(5)(b)(c) of the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Question of law and fact). 3. Whether the Authorized Officer recorded reasons for arriving at the finding that a forest offense was committed (Question of law). 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of his vehicle on interim custody, given that a complaint case is pending before the CJM, Cachar, and the vehicle is his sole source of income (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 451 Cr.P.C. and Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the confiscation order was illegal as no forest offense was committed due to a valid transit pass. He claimed a discrepancy in log count was due to cutting. He asserted he did not receive proper notices and was denied an opportunity to present evidence, violating Section 49(5)(b)(c). He also argued that no reasons were recorded for the offense finding. He contended he was unaware of the illegal transport and that the vehicle was his livelihood. He relied on the principle that he is innocent until proven guilty in the criminal case. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued, through the appellate court's findings, that the petitioner failed to prove to the satisfaction of the forest officials that the vehicle was used without his knowledge, connivance, or abetment, justifying the confiscation. The judgment also referred to Supreme Court pronouncements stating that confiscation proceedings are independent of criminal prosecution and that vehicles used in forest offenses are not normally released until proceedings conclude.