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

In a recent case where a Writ Petition was filed to challenge the revocation of a sawmill license, the Jharkhand High Court said the competent authority under the Bihar Saw Mills Act, 1990 is empowered to revoke a license and confiscate timber when a licensee is unable to provide a valid explanation for unaccounted wood, even if the licensee is simultaneously facing a criminal case related to the illegal transportation of wood without the required documentation.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...

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

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

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

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers