Gauhati High Court
Sri Faijul Hoque vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 27 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/23
GAHC010186632025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case : Crl.Pet./1031/2025
SRI FAIJUL HOQUE
S/OLATE SAKIR HUSSAIN
R/O VILL- SAGOLIA PART-II
P.O. SAGOLIA
P.S. GOLAKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM
2:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
CACHAR DIVISION
CLUB ROAD
NEAR D.C. OFFICE
P.S. SILCHAR
SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788001.
3:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
DHOLAI FOREST RANGE OFFICE AT DHOLAI
P.O. AND P.S. DHOLAI
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/23
------------
Advocate for : MR. I HAQUE
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
JUDGMENT
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. I Hoque,
Advocate for the respondents
: Mr. I. Borthakur, SC, Forest
Department
Date on which judgment is reserved : 04.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.04.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment ? : N/A
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. I Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department.
2. The petitioner, namely Faijul Hoque, has invoked the provisions of
Section 528 BNSS, aggrieved by the continued detention of a vehicle, in
the nature of a truck bearing registration No. AS-17B-9317, which was
seized by the forest authorities in connection with OR No. DH/6 of 2018-
Page No.# 3/23
19 DVL/65 of 2019-20. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the non-
completion of investigation despite the lapse of several years.
3. Before proceeding further, the facts may be noticed. The Personnel of
Lailapur Beat were on patrol duty at Lailapur NH-54 on 12.08.2018,
during which a truck bearing registration No. AS-17B-9317 coming from
Mizoram was intercepted and checked. The vehicle was found loaded
with teak log, but it was found to be doubtful, whereupon the vehicle
was brought to the Range HQ, Dholai and logs
4. Upon such verification, apart from discrepancy in quantity vis-Ã -vis
transit pass major discrepancies were also found in respect of the length
and girth of the logs and most of the logs were found unmarked and
indistinct. Consequently, the vehicle was seized and notice was issued to
the petitioner, stated to be the owner of the vehicle, to produce within 30
days, the legality and proof of origin of the forest produce. The matter
was also informed to the respondent No. 2, (DFO, Cachar) who also the
learned CJM, Cachar and the Range Forest Officer, Hawaithang Range,
Dholai.
5. The vehicle in question was confiscated under the provisions of
Section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, (hereinafter, The
Regulation). Section 49 of the Regulation provides for seizure of property
liable to confiscation and the procedure to be followed for such seizure is
laid down in the Regulation itself. The seizure of the truck was made vide
order dated 17.01.2020, passed by the Authorized Officer – Divisional
Forest Officer Cachar, in Offence Case No. DH/6 of 2018-19, DVL
65/2019-20.
Page No.# 4/23
6. The Confiscation Order stated about confiscation of the seized teak
logs to the State of Assam and also confiscation of the vehicle in
question to the State of Assam. Aggrieved by the said order of
confiscation of the vehicle, the petitioner preferred an appeal under
Section 49C of the Regulation before the Court of the Learned District
Judge, Cachar and which was posted for disposal before the Court of the
Learned Additional District Judge, Cachar. The learned Appellate Court,
vide Judgment and order dated 07.03.2022, was pleased to dismiss the
appeal, thereby upholding the Order of Confiscation dated 17.01.2020,
passed by the learned DFO, Cachar Division, Silchar, as Authorized
Officer.
7. In Para 18 of the appellate judgment, the learned Appellate Court
held,inter alia, that though the Authorized Officer was justified in passing
the order of confiscation of the seized vehicle, but the said confiscation
was of a temporary nature. The petitioner, aggrieved by the adverse
appellate judgment, brought the matter before this Court by way of a
criminal revision, being Criminal Revision Petition No. 173 of 2022. The
said criminal revision was disposed of, vide judgment and order dated
30.08.2022 passed by this Court. The Revisional Court also did not find
merit in the case of the petitioner and it upheld the appellate judgement
and order of the Learned Additional District Judge, Cachar, Silchar and
thereby, the Order of Confiscation dated 17.01.2020, passed by the
learned DFO, Cachar Division, Silchar in Offence Case No. DH/6 of 2018-
19, DVL 65/2019-20. The petitioner, thereafter, knocked the doors of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.), being SLP (Crl.) No.
5347/2023, which however was dismissed, vide order dated 07.11.2023.
Page No.# 5/23
8. Thus, the order dated 17.01.2020, passed by the Forest Authority,
confiscating the vehicle of the petitioner, attained finality in that manner.
Apart from this petition, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit,
bringing on record the certified copies of the Appellate Judgment, the
Revisional Judgement and the Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the SLP. It is stated by the petitioner that he submitted a representation
dated 28.06.2024, before the learned DFO, Cachar, seeking information
about the outcome of the criminal investigation with regard to the
aforementioned forest case and as to whether charge-sheet or final
report has been filed in the matter. However, it is contended by the
petitioner that despite the lapse of six years, since the initiation of the
case, he did not get any response to the said communication.
9. The petitioner states that he had also filed a representation dated
25.06.2025, before the said Forest Authority, praying for the withdrawal
of the pending Forest Offence case against him, in terms of the
Notification No. E-217405/52 dated 21-10-2022 and another notification
being Notification No. E-217405/112 dated 20.09.2024, issued by the
Government of Assam regarding withdrawal of certain categories of
cases. However, the petitioner did not get any positive response on the
same, and accordingly, came before this Court with this criminal petition,
invoking the provisions under Section 528 BNSS.
10. Mr. I. Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
vehicle in question was seized eight years back and till date, no final
outcome of the criminal investigation has been submitted, thereby,
causing prejudice to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that the confiscation made by the Forest Authority is also subject
Page No.# 6/23
to the outcome of the criminal proceeding, which has been pending for
several years, and as a result of the same, he has been deprived of his
vehicle over this long period. It is also submitted by the learned counsel
that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, long delay
in completion of investigation could be a ground for quashing of the
criminal proceedings. Another limb of submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, the offense in question would fall within
the ambit of the scheme of the Government of Assam, incorporated in
the aforesaid two notifications regarding withdrawal of cases, and that,
in similar matters such withdrawal has been made, pursuant to which the
owner of the vehicle has been able to get back the vehicle.
11. In support of the same, he has referred to a decision of this Court
rendered on 09.06.2025 in Criminal Petition No. 572 of 2025. In that
case also, the vehicle of the petitioner’s father was confiscated by the
DFO, Cachar, but in the meantime, the case has been withdrawn in terms
of the notification and the accused discharged. In such a factual
situation, this Court directed the Forest Authority to hand over the
vehicle in question to the legal heir of the petitioner, as the petitioner in
that case had expired in the meantime, and the petitioner who was the
son of the deceased owner, in that case, was directed to apply for
transfer of ownership immediately.
12. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relies on the following decisions:-
(i) Sambhu Saha Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. (2012)
GAU- AS-115,
(ii) Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu Vs.
Page No.# 7/23State of Bihar in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1128,
13. Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing counsel for the Forest Department
submits that the confiscation of the vehicle has attained finality, and it
cannot be released in favour of the petitioner. The department, however,
has not filed any affidavit. Nevertheless, Mr. Borthakur, the learned
counsel for the Forest Department, looking after forest offences, submits
that while Section 51 of the Regulation provides for confiscation of
property upon conviction of an accused in a forest offence; on the other
hand, Section 49 provides for a different and parallel process of
confiscation of property, which as per the Forest Authority is involved in a
forest offence. The said provision it is submitted, also provides for an
appellate forum under Section 49C of the Regulation.
14. The learned counsel for the Department submits that he has not
received instructions about completion of the criminal investigation into
the alleged forest offence, but with regard to the confiscation, he
reiterates his contention that the said confiscation was by invoking of the
parallel provision incorporated in Section 49 of the Regulation.
15. In support of his contentions, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Forest Department has relied upon the following decisions:-
(i) Deep Kumar Vs. State of Assam in 2022 SCC OnLine
Gau 1248
(ii) Divisional Forest Officer and Another Vs. G.V.
Sudhakar Rao and Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 573,
(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Kallo Bai (2017)
14 SCC 502,
(iv) Deep Kumar Vs. State of Assam & Anr. in SLP (Crl.)
Page No.# 8/23No. 3131/2023.
16. I have gone through the materials on record and considered the rival
submissions. I have also perused the decisions cited at the Bar.
17. Before proceeding further, the provisions of Sections 49 and 51 of
the Regulation may be reproduced here in below:-
[49]. Seizure of property liable to confiscation- (I) When there is reason
to believe that a forests offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce’
such produce, together with all tools, boats, motorised boats, vessels, cattle, carts rafts,
machineries vehicles, trucks, ropes chains or any other implements’ articles or
materials used in the Commission of such offence may be seized by’ any Forest Officer
not below the rank of a Forester or and Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-
inspector of Police.
(2) Every Officer seizing any property under subSection(1 ), shall place on
such property or the receptacle, if any, in which it is contained, a mark indicating that
the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property
seized before an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests
authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authorised Officer’) or in case the seizure is made by a
Police Officer’ making a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence
on account of which the seizure has been made with an intimation to the ‘Authorised
Officer’ or where it is, having regard to the quantity or the bulk or any other genuine
difficulty, not practicable to produce the property seized before the ‘Authorised Officer’
or where it is intended to launch prosecution against the offender, immediately make a
report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account
of which the seizure has been made. Provided that where the forest produce with respect
to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of the
Government and the offender is unknown it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as
soon as may be, a report of the circumstance to his official superiors. (3) Any Forest
Officer or Police Officer may, if he has reason to believe that a vehicle has been or is
being used for the transport of any forest produced in respect of which any forest
Page No.# 9/23offence has been committed, require the driver or any other person or persons in charge
of such vehicle to stop the vehicle and cause it to remain stationary as long as may
reasonably the necessary to examine the contents in the vehicle and inspect all relating
to the goods carried, which are in possession of such driver or other person in charge of
the vehicle.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-Section(5) and (6), where the
Authorized Officer upon production before him of the property seized or upon receipt
of a report about seizure, as the case may be, and after such personal inspection or
verification as he may deem fit and necessary, satisfied that a forest offence has been
committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing and fur reasons to be
recorded therein, confiscate the forest produce so seized together with all tools,
vehicles, cattle, trucks, motorized boats, boats, carts, machineries, vessels, ropes,
chains or any other Seizure of property liable to confiscation implements of articles
used in committing such offence. A copy of the order of confiscation shall, without
any undue delay, be forwarded to the conservator of Forests of the circle in which the
forest produce has been seized and the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
offence on account of which the seizure has been made.
(5) No order confiscating any property shall be made under the preceding
provisions unless the Authorized Officer :-
a) sends an intimation in the prescribed form about the initiation of the
proceeding for confiscation of properly to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
offence on account of which the seizure has been made;
b) Issue a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized,
and to any other person who may appear to the Authorized Officer to have some interest
in such property and in cased of motorized boats, vessels. vehicles, trucks etc having a
registered number to the registered owner thereof ;
c) Affords to the persons referred to in clause (b) above a reasonable
opportunity of making a representation within, such reasonable time as may be specified
in the notice, against the proposed confiscation ; and
d) Gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons
Page No.# 10/23referred to in clause (b) or (c) above a reasonable opportunity of being heard on a date
or dates to be fixed for the purpose.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, no
order of confiscation under subSection(4) of any tools, boats, motorized boats, vessels,
cattle, carts, rafts, machineries, vehicles, trucks, ropes, chains or any other implements,
articles (other than timber or forest produce) shall be made if any persons referred to in
clause (b) of sub-Section(5) proves to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer that such
tools, vehicles machineries, trucks, vessels, boats, motorised boats, vessels, carts, rafts,
cattle, ropes, chains or any other implements, articles were used without his knowledge
or connivance or abetment or as the case may be- without the knowledge or connivance
or abetment of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and due precautions had
been taken against the use of the object aforesaid for the commission of the forest
offence.]
51. Forest produce, tools, etc., when liable to confiscation-(I) When any
person is convicted of a forest offence, all forest produce which is not the property of the
[Government] and in respect of which such offence has been committed, and all tools,
boats carts and cattle used in the commission of such offence, shall be liable, by order
of the convicting Court, to confiscation. (2) Such confiscation may be in addition to any
other punishment prescribed for such offence.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. Upon perusing these provisions, one finds that Section 51 comes
into play upon conviction of a person for a forest offence – whereafter,
the criminal Court can direct confiscation of the property. On the other
hand, Section 49(4) is a kind of administrative confiscation by
empowered Forest Officials of property suspected to be involved in forest
offences. The exercise of the said power is subject to conditions, such as
giving the information to the concerned learned Magistrate and also
giving an opportunity to the owner of the property to make out grounds,
if any, that the offence was committed without his knowledge.
Page No.# 11/23
19. Thus, it is clear that there are two kinds of confiscation of property
envisaged under the Regulation. Administrative confiscation under
Section 49(4) and confiscation directed by Criminal Court upon conviction
envisaged under Section 51. Now the most important question is
whether the confiscation under Section 49 of the Regulation is a final
nature or whether it is of a temporary nature pending outcome of the
case before the criminal Court.
20. The learned counsel for the Forest Department has contended that
these two parallel confiscation paths are mutually exclusive and once a
confiscation is made in exercise of powers under Section 49, the same
would not depend upon any outcome of a criminal proceeding before the
Criminal Court. In other words, it is contended that confiscation under
Section 49(4) and Section 51 of the Regulation are independent of each
other. It appears that the said question has already been addressed by
this Court in earlier decisions. Thus, in Jogeshwar Borah v. State of Assam
and others reported in (2006) 03 GLT 162, this Court in Para-5 has held
that the confiscation of the property ordered by the Authorized Officer
under Section 49 must be understood to be a confiscation under Section
49 and the same has been held to be a temporary stage. The relevant
Para-5 may be reproduced herein below:-
“(5) That the petitioner is not involved in any forest offence is a
fact, which is not disputed. It is only the vehicle of which the
petitioner is the registered owner, that is involved in a forest offence.
Admittedly and evidently, the trial of the offence in connection with
which the truck of the petitioner is involved has not come to an end,
and, therefore, no order of confiscation under regulation 51 and
consequential appropriation of such property in the name of the state
Page No.# 12/23
have occurred. The confiscation of the property ordered by the
Authorized Officer, therefore, must be understood by the Court to be
confiscation under Regulation 49 of the regulations, which is a
temporary stage. In such a situation, when the truck is the source of
livelihood of the petitioner, it is difficult to visualize as to why it should
have been retained beyond a reasonable time. In the circumstances
noted above, the continued confiscation or retention of the truck of
the petitioner must be held by the Court to be wholly without
authority of law and this Court must also hold that the concerned
authorities at all levels have failed to exercise their quasi judicial
discretion vested by the provisions of the forest Regulations in a fair
and unbiased manner.”
21. Similarly, in Jaminur Rahman v. State of Assam (2016) 01 GLR 136 ,
this Court again addressed the issue and after referring to Jogeshwar
Borah (supra) and another earlier decision, Nathuni Singh Vs. Deputy
Commissioner and Ors. 1999 (3) GLT 604 agreed with the said position of
law that order of final confiscation can be passed only under Section 51
of the Regulation and confiscation by Authorized Officer under Section 49
is a temporary measure. The relevant Para-8 of Jaminur Rahman
(supra) may be reproduced herein below:-
“8. In Jogeswar Bora v. State of Assam, 2006 (3) GLT 162, this court
held that order of final confiscation can be passed only under section 51 of the Forest
Regulation by the Magistrate and the confiscation of the seized property by the
authorized officer under Regulation 49 is a temporary measure. In Nathuni Singh v.
Deputy Commissioner, 1999 (3) GLT 604, this court while interpreting section 51 of the
Forest Regulation clarified that only when the vehicle owner is convicted for the forest
offence, confiscati6n of the vehicle under section 51 can be justified.”
22. In yet another decision being Sambhu Saha v. State of Assam
and others in WP(C) 6690/2005, the Court examined Sections 49
Page No.# 13/23
and 51 and held that though the word confiscation has been used in
Section 49, these are misnomer as Section 49 provides for a stage prior
to confiscation and that the confiscation is visualized only in Section 51
upon conviction of a person of a forest offence. Referring to Jogeshwar
Bora (Supra), the Court reiterated the position that confiscation under
Section 49 is of temporary nature. In Para-25, the Court held that as
confiscation of property by authorized Forest Official under Section 49 is
of a temporary nature – therefore, in that case, the Forest Authority
exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering confiscation of the vehicle to State.
23. In Sambhu Saha (supra), the Court held that the continued
confiscation and retention of the petitioner’s truck was wholly illegal and
unjustified as the State Counsel could not say as to whether there is any
order of conviction and confiscation under Section 51 by any Court. The
Court directed the release of the truck. The relevant paragraph nos. 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 28 may be reproduced herein below:-
“17. Regulation 49 provides for seizure of property liable to confiscation.
T he procedure to be followed for seizure of property is laid down in the said
Regulation. Though the words confiscation, confiscating and confiscated have been
used in Sub Regulations (4) and (5) of Regulation 49, those are really a misnomer
inasmuch as Regulation 49 provides for a stage prior to confiscation. As already
noticed, it provides for seizure of property liable to confiscation. Such a confiscation is
visualized in Regulation 51 which provides that when any per son is convicted of a
forest offence, all forest produce which is not the property of the Government and in
respect of which such offence has been committed, an d all tools, boats, carts and cattle
used in the commission of such offence, shall be liable, by order of the convicting Court,
to confiscation.
18. Examining the scope of Regulations 49 and 51 of the Regulation, this
Court in the case of Jogeswar Borah (supra) held that confiscation under Regulation 49
Page No.# 14/23is of a temporary nature. In that case, no order of confiscation under Regulation 51 was
passed and there was no consequential appropriation of property in the name of the
State. In such circumstances, the Court held that the confiscation of property ordered by
the Authorized Officer should be understood to be confiscation under Regulation 49 of
the Regulation which is a temporary stage.
19. In the present case, admittedly, the order of confiscation is under
Regulation 49 (4) of the Regulation.
20. Learned State counsel is unable to say as to whether or not there is
any order of conviction and of confiscation under Regulation 51 by any Court.
21. The fact that the petitioner is not involved in any forest offence is no
t disputed. It is only the vehicle of which the petitioner is the registered owner, that is
involved in a forest offence. As noticed above, the learned State counsel is unable to
inform the Court about the stage of trial under Regulation 51. Apparently, no order of
confiscation under Regulation 51 has been passed.
22. In such circumstances, considering that confiscation under Regulation 4 9 is
of temporary nature, the question which arises for consideration is whether the
respondents more particularly the Respondent No.3 is justified in retaining the vehicle
of the petitioner for such a long period i.e. from 23.2.2004 till d ate i.e. for more than 8
years.
25. Moreover, considering that confiscation of property by the Authorized Officer
under Regulation 49 is of a temporary nature, the Respondent No.3 clearly exceeded his
jurisdiction when he ordered confiscation of the vehicle to the State.
28. In view of the discussions made above, the continued confiscation/retention of
the petitioner’s truck is considered wholly illegal and unjustified. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to have his truck released forthwith. Accordingly, the impugned
orders dated 5.2.2005 and 30.6.2005 are hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner’s
vehicle bearing registration No.AS-18/1305 be immediately released to him, subject to
furnishing undertaking by the petitioner for production of the vehicle before any Court,
if so required.”
24. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision
Page No.# 15/23
in Deep Kumar vs. State of Assam and another , where the Honorable
Supreme Court referred to the case of State of Karnataka vs K. Krishnan
2000 7 SCC 80, wherein, it was held that when a vehicle is seized on
allegation of being involved in a forest offence, the same shall not be
normally returned till culmination of all proceedings in respect of such
offence.
25. In Kalu Bhai (supra) and G. V. Sudhakar Rao (Supra), the Court
was adjudicating similar parallel provisions for confiscation under the
Forest Laws of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh and the Court held
that Section-15 of the Madhya Pradesh Act gives independent power of
confiscation to Authorized Officer even prior to establishment of guilt by
a criminal Court.
26. Similarly, with regard to the Andhra Pradesh Act also, it was held in
G. V. Sudhakar Rao (supra) that these criminal proceedings and
proceedings by Forest Authority can be pursued simultaneously.
However, in view of the clear position of law enunciated by as many as
three coordinate Benches of this Court and the matter not having been
taken to the Honourable Apex Court and not returned there from with a
contrary position – the aforesaid decisions pertaining to the Forest Laws
of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh would not be of help to the
department, in this case.
27. Now, it is also true that the administrative confiscation initiated by
the DFO Cachar was taken up in appeal to the Court of the District Judge
Cachar, who was pleased to dismiss the same and the subsequent
revision before this Court followed by the SLP before the Honourable
Supreme Court were also dismissed – thereby, giving legal finality to the
Page No.# 16/23
decision of the Authorised Officer – even if it constitutes a temporary
measure in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Jaminur Rahman
(supra), Jogeshwar Borah (supra) and Sambhu Saha (supra). As already
stated earlier, the department has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition,
and the learned counsel for the Forest Department has not submitted
that investigation has been completed and it appears that the criminal
proceeding pertaining to the alleged forest offence in which the
petitioner’s vehicle was seized is still not completed, though it was
initiated in 2018 itself, thereby spanning a period of more than seven
years. In this regard, the decision relied upon by the petitioner’s side in
Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu (supra) may be seen. In
the said decision, the Honourable Apex Court has reiterated the settled
position of law that the right to speedy investigation is a facet of Article
21 of the Constitution of India. A very important principle laid down in
Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu (Supra) is that if
investigation into a particular offence continues for a period that appears
to be unduly long without adequate justification, then the complainant
shall be at liberty to invoke the provisions under Section 528 BNSS/482
Cr.P.C, seeking an update on investigation and the accused can also
invoke such provisions for quashing of the investigation. However, the
Honourable Apex Court clarified that the quashing of such a proceeding
can be done so, on the ground of delay in completion of investigation as
one of the grounds and that the Court will have to see the other grounds
as well. The relevant Para 21 may be reproduced herein below:-
“21. Before parting with this matter, we deem it fit to issue the following
directions:
Page No.# 17/23
(i) In view of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali 27, it can be seen that the ‘leave
of the court’ to file a supplementary charge-sheet, is a part of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
That being the position, in our considered view, the Court is not rendered functus officio
having granted such permission. Since the further investigation is being made with the
leave of the Court, judicial stewardship/control thereof, is a function which the court
must perform.
(ii) Reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of the machinery
of criminal law. They form the bedrock of fairness, transparency, and accountability in
the justice system. If the Court finds or the accused alleges (obviously with proof and
reason to substantiate the allegation) that there is a large gap between the first
information report and the culminating charge-sheet, it is bound to seek an
explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself to the propriety of the
explanation so furnished.
The direction above does not come based on this case alone. This Court
has noticed on many unfortunate occasions that there is massive delay in filing charge-
sheet/taking cognizance etc. This Court has time and again, in its pronouncements
underscored the necessity of speedy investigation and trial as being important for the
accused, victim and the society. However, for a variety of reasons there is still a lag in
the translation of this recognition into a reality. (iii) While it is well acknowledged and
recognized that the process of investigation has many moving parts and is therefore
impractical to have strict timelines in place, at the same time, the discussion made in
the earlier part of this judgment, clearly establishes that investigations cannot continue
endlessly. The accused is not out of place to expect, after a certain point in time,
certainty- about the charges against him, giving him ample time to preparing plead his
defence. If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that
appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this
case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High
Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C, seeking an update on the investigation or,
if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is
clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the
grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other
grounds will also have to be considered.
Page No.# 18/23
(iv) Reasons are not only important in the judicial sphere, but they are equally
essential in administrative matters particularly in matters such as sanction for they
open the gateway to greater consequences. Application of mind by the authorities
granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the
evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion.
Pending application(s) if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.”
28. In an instant case, though the administrative confiscation by the
authorised officer invoking Section 49 has attained legal finality, but in
terms of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid three decisions
of Jaminur Rahman (supra), Jogeshwar Borah (supra) and Sambhu Saha
(supra) – the same is of a temporary nature and it awaits the outcome of
the criminal proceeding and only in the event of criminal proceeding
resulting in a charge-sheet, followed by trial, culminating in conviction –
that a final order of confiscation under Section 51 of the Regulation can
be passed.
29. As already stated, the investigation is stated to be not yet completed
despite the elapse of more than seven years. The petitioner has also
prayed before the Forest Authority to avail benefit of the Notifications
dated 21.10.2022 and 20.09.2024 issued by the Government of Assam
for withdrawal of cases. The category of cases enumerated in the said
notification may be reproduced herein below:-
“GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM-
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT :: JUDICIAL BRANCH
DISPUR :: GUWAHATI-G
NOTIFICATION
Dated Dispur, 21 October, 2022No. E-217405/52: Pursuant to Cabinet decision dated 11.09.2022 regarding withdrawal of
petty/minor criminal cases pending in subordinate Courts throughout the State of Assam by
Page No.# 19/23invoking Section 321 CrPC, 1973, the Governor of Assam is pleased to Issue this detalled
Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] to be followed by all concerned.
Introduction
There are more than 4.5 Lakhs of cases pending in varioos subordinate courts in Assam,
of which the criminal cases alone comes to more than 3.5 lakhs. The huge pendency of cases
has over burdened the court in Assam and has been causing back log resulting in delay of
disposal of cases which ultimately has financial and social hardship to the litigant citizens.
The pendency as on 30.06.2022 is 3,66,342 criminal cases and 91,385 civil cases.
Background
As per National Judicial Data Grid, there are more than three crore Criminal cases
pending across the country. Of late there has been a call to bring down pendency of cases in
courts both by the Centre and the States and even the law Ministry has drawn a litigation
policy and asked the States to review all the pending litigation. Even the Issue of reduction in
pendency of cases found figured in the discussion in the Conferences of the Hon’ble Chief
Justices and Hon’ble Chief Ministers held from time to time. During the Chief Justices
Conference held on 29th April, 2022 in respect to item no.3 it was discussed that there was an
increases in cases by 54.64% since 01.07.2016 from 2.65 crore to 4.11 crore whereas the
Increase of Judicial officers is only 16% during this period.
The need is to do away with the undue delay in bringing logical condusion in
adjudication of cases thereby ensuring the Füridamental Rights of speedy trial and faster
delivery of Justice to the Citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
The Govt. of Assam vide notification no. HMA.19011/50/2017-Political (A)/eCF-
6524/145 dated 12.07.2022 has constituted a comfilttee to be headed by the Principel
Secretary to the Govt. of Assam to look into the matter and bring out a policy for disposal of
pending petty cases. After due deliberation, the sald committee in its meeting dated
14.07.2022 has resolved to go for withdrawal of minor/petty cases and dedded the basic
criteria for identification of cases providing punishment up to 3 years/fine excluding certain
category of cases falling within this criteria. Accordingly, the sald committee decided to go
for withdrawal of cases where ponishment is up to 3 years or fine or both under the India
Penal Code or any other spédal Act/Acts except the following category of cases.
Page No.# 20/23
i.. Molestation/ Sexual Assault/POCSO Act.
ii. Corruption /embezzlement of public fund.
iii. NDPS Act.
Iv. Arms Act/Explosive substance Act.
v. Cases registered under Section 498(A) IPC and other cases related to dowry.
vii. Offence relating to coins and Government stamp/Currency.
viii. Unlawful Activities (P) Act.
ix. Organized Crimes like cattle smuggling/supari smuggling/coal smuggling/oil theft
etc.Χ. Cases against MPs & MLAs.
OBJECTIVE BEHIND THIS LITIGATION POLICY
i. This exercise will reduce the burden of pendency of cases in courts which in turn will
facilitate the courts to devote more time for serious offences, old pending cases and other
cases ensuring timely justice.
ii. It will also provide time to the Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public
Prosecutor/Assistant Public to properly prepare the other cases and assist the court
judiciously.
iii. The proposed action will help in decongestion of the jails by way of release of the
Under Trial Prisoners who are accused in the aforesaid petty/minor cases.
iv. Large number of witnesses of these cases, will be benefitted, as the wage earners
need not have to forgo their dally wages, no hampering official duties in respect of official
witnesses [police/doctors/forensic experts etc.), or personal engagement of witnesses other
than the monetary expenses incurred by them.
v. The proposed action will ensure Right to Speedy Trial etc. as envisaged under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Govt. of Assam has collected data from the Hon’ble Gauhati High
Court which reveals that there are about 1,19,512 number of cases registered upto 14.08.2022
Page No.# 21/23which can be withdrawn in respect of the above category of cases. Out of 119512 cases, the
cases falling under the Section 498 A IPC (pertaining to cruelty to women) and Dowry cases
will be excluded.
State Cabinet has approved this proposal for withdrawal of cases in its meeting dated
11.09.2022 along with the SOP.”
30. Thus, clearly, a forest offence like the instant one is not excluded by
that notification from being withdrawn. In the decision of this Court in
Gaurav Pandey v. State of Assam and others in Criminal Petition No. 572
of 2025, relied upon by the petitioner side, with regard to a similar forest
offence, resulting in C.R. Case No. 4 of 2019, before the learned Addl.
CJM, Cachar – the case was withdrawn and on the basis of such
development, this Court was pleased to direct release of the vehicle. The
relevant paragraphs-4, 6 and 12 of the said order may be reproduced
herein below:-
“4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the case was
withdrawn and the petitioner has been discharged, the vehicle which has
been confiscated by the DFO, Cachar, Silchar, can be handed over to the
registered owner of the vehicle. The alleged accused, Sri Deep Kumar,
who is the registered owner, has passed away and his death certificate
has been marked as Annexure-A of the petition.
6. Learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, has admitted that the
case was already withdrawn and the alleged accused was discharged of
the offence under Section 41 of the Assam Forest Regulation Act, in
connection with CR Case No. 404/2019.
12. It appears that an order may be passed to hand over the vehicle in
zimma of the legal heir of the deceased accused. Therefore, the DFO,
Cachar, at Silchar is directed to hand over the vehicle to the petitioner,
under the condition that the petitioner executes an undertaking that the
petitioner will immediately apply for transfer of ownership of the vehicle,
Page No.# 22/23before the appropriate authority.”
31. In the instant case, the investigation into a Forest offence has not
been completed despite the elapse of more than seven years. The same
is undoubtedly an unduly long period for the purpose of such an
investigation. The department has also not given any reasons for non-
completion of such investigation, despite the elapse of a considerable
period.
32. Moreover, a similar case has been withdrawn, as revealed by the
order dated 09.06.2025 passed in Criminal Petition 572 of 2025,
discussed above. Therefore, in terms of the principles laid down by the
Honourable Apex Court in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L
Chongthu (supra), this Court takes note of the undue delay in completion
of investigation vis-Ã -vis the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution and also takes note of withdrawal of similar case purportedly
in terms of the notification of the Government of Assam as submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and not disputed by the other side.
33. In any case, in terms of Section 62 of the Regulation, offences under
the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 are compoundable at the instance of
the Forest Authority. Therefore, I am of the considered view that in
terms of the principles laid down in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R
L Chongthu (supra), the criminal proceedings can be quashed and such a
course of action would not also prejudice the department, especially
when the petitioner has already been deprived of his vehicle for as long
as seven years. Accordingly, in the circumstances and in the backdrop of
the above discussion – the criminal proceedings pertaining to offence
report No. OR No. DH/6 of 2018-19 DVL/65 of 2019-20 are hereby
Page No.# 23/23
quashed.
34. Further, the Authorised Officer/Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar
Division, Cachar, Silchar is directed to do the needful to release the
vehicle (truck bearing registration No. AS-17B-9317) in favour of
the petitioner upon verification and the usual formalities.
35. The instant criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
