Indian Forest Act | Pending Criminal Case Does Not Halt Forest Authority's Right To Confiscate Wood Logs, Revoke Licenses: Jharkhand High Court

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, while placing reliance on the Apex Court’s judgement in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733, reiterated “This Court after applying the said principle herein which is para materia to the confiscation proceeding as available under the Indian Forest Act wherein also apart from the criminal prosecution the power of dealing with the lisecne is also vested as would appear from the provision of Section 52 (5) of the Indian Forest Act.”

“This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid principle and applying the same to the facts of the given case, is of the view that the merely because the criminal case is pending the authority concerned cannot be restrained from exercising the power for confiscation of logs of wood and cancellation of license,” Justice Prasad added.

The above ruling came in a writ petition filed against order passed in an Appeal Case whereby decision was taken by the authority concerned that the order passed in a License Case cancelling the Licence of the petitioner was just and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

The Petition was filed by the proprietor of M/s Amar Saw Mill, who encountered an incident where forest guards intercepted two trucks during an inspection and it was discovered that both the trucks were loaded with logs of wood in excess of permitted limit of Permit. Accordingly, both the trucks were seized and a criminal case was instituted.

The competent authority of the forest department issued notice upon the writ petitioner as to why the penal action be not taken in the light of provision as contained under section 7(5)(C) of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990. Further, the respondent-authority directed for inspection of Saw Mill Store of the petitioner, which was carried out, however, it was the case of the petitioner that such inspection was made in his absence.

Accordingly, on the basis of such inspection report order, the license of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner being aggrieved thereof preferred an appeal which was allowed by remitting the matter back to the The Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer to consider the matter afresh by affording opportunity to the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that for the alleged illegality two proceedings were initiated i.e., one under the penal offence by instituting a criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and another for confiscation.

Further, the respondent-authority directed for inspection of Saw Mill Store of the petitioner, which was carried out but such inspection was made in his absence, and thus, it was contended that the order impugned was highly unwarranted since the same had been passed without taking into consideration the fact that the criminal prosecution was pending on the date when the order was passed by the confiscating authority for confiscation, save and except this point no other point has been raised on behalf of petitioner.

Alternatively, on the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that there was no nexus of pendency of criminal prosecution so far it related to the confiscation proceeding since both the proceedings were on two different parameters and were to proceed for different consequences. It was further submitted that merely because the criminal prosecution was pending it cannot be said that the authority was having no jurisdiction to initiate the confiscation proceeding.

The issue which required the consideration of the Court based upon the argument advanced by the parties was that the criminal prosecution since was pending on the date of confiscation proceeding the same ought to have waited for the outcome of the criminal case.

The Court at the outset, expounded on the statutory provision of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990; after which it observed that the power of revocation or suspension of the license is vested upon the competent authority that is to be taken after providing an opportunity of showing cause to the concerned licensee.

Upon a thorough examination of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, the Court determined it to be a comprehensive legal framework encompassing all the necessary provisions to oversee the operations of saw mills and saw pits, as well as the trade of sawing, all for the purpose of safeguarding and conserving forests and the environment.

The Court addressed the argument presented, which contended that the authority under the Act, 1990 should have refrained from initiating confiscation proceedings while a criminal case was pending. The Court, however, found this argument unconvincing, and emphasized that the prosecution under the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989) Act, involving penal offenses, served a distinct purpose, and its purpose was to uphold the objectives and intentions of the Forest Act, aimed at safeguarding and conserving forests and the environment, as outlined in the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

The Court noted that the provision for initiating penal offenses, as delineated in Section 52 and beyond, was in place for a specific reason. Consequently, the Court opined that since logs of wood were discovered without valid challans or permits, initiating penal offenses was justified.

Returning to the order issued by the authorized officers, the Court found that considerable thought had been applied by the relevant authority regarding the discovery of wood on the vehicle. However, no valid documentation to support the possession of this wood was provided. The Court further identified the following irregularities:

1. Unauthorized storage of 24.5171 cubic meters of wood at the sawmill.

2. Overloading of woods on trucks with registration numbers BR 14G-0645 and BR-144/4502, exceeding the permissible limit.

3. Discovery of manipulation in the stock register by the inspection team.

The Court held, “This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid principle and coming back to the factual aspect of this case, is of the view that it is not the case of such nature where any error on the face of order is available based upon the discussion made hereinabove rather the order is within the four corner of the statutory provision, as per the provision of Section 7(5)(c) of the Act, 1990.”

Thus, the Court was of the view that the impugned orders required no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate

Counsel/s For the Respondent : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AC to AAG V

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

Case Title: M/s Amar Saw Mill v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 205 of 2011

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement