GUWAHATI, India, May 28 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 27:

1. 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- 19 DVL/65 of 2019-20. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the noncompletion 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-a-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.

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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x0I1eLP16z2cnjSlUFIldkLJ7vlQYKU1P97u03xEuy4e&caseno=Crl.Pet./1031/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010186652025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.