Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

The Supreme Court has ruled on Monday that the Government has got every right to confiscate vehicles and other materials used by forest wood smugglers and auction them. A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma said a forest being a national wealth, the Government is well within its rights to take necessary steps for preserving it and acting against those who seek to plunder it. Quoting its earlier judgement in the West Bengal vs Sujit Kumar case, the apex court said "Forest is a national wealth which is required to be preserved. In most of the cases, the State is the owner of the forest and forest produce. Depletion of forests would lead to ecological imbalance." The apex court passed the ruling while dismissing the appeal of Mohd Ashique whose truck was confiscated in 1999 by the Maharashtra forest officials after he was allegedly found smuggling "Nimb" and "Katsawar" wood. The sessions court, Akola, and the Bombay High Court dismissed his plea, following which he appealed in the apex court. Ashique in his appeal before the apex court claimed that there was no evidence to prove that he was personally involved in alterations in documents which formed the basis for allegations against him. However, interpreting Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, the apex court said that a duty is cast upon the vehicle's owner or his agent to prove to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that smuggling had taken place without his consent and he had taken all precautions against smuggling or poaching. The bench also referred to various provisions like Section 61-E that provides "for confiscation and does not save the offender from any other punishment which can be imposed upon him under the Indian Forest Act or any other law." Similarly, the apex court said Section 61-G bars jurisdiction of any other officer, court or tribunal with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of property seized under the relevant provision. However, the bench said that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case (smuggling) as the same is pending before an appropriate court
"Loved reading this piece by Prakash Yedhula?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  507  Report



Comments
img