Uttarakhand High Court
Shri Jabul Haq vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
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