The State of Jharkhand through the Divisional ForestOfficer, Dhanbad Forest Division and Ors.vs. Binod Kumar Saria

MANU/JH/0034/2007

In this case the appellants filed an application in the said court and confiscation proceeding was initiated under Section 13 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990.The respondent’s saw mill was a licencee saw mill as granted under Section 5(b) of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990.Hon’ble the Single Judge failed to take into consideration that the respondent could not produce the transit permit in relation to the confiscated timbers as required under the provisions of Section 10 & 13 of Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990.under Section 52 subject to its appeal and revision respectively under Sections 52A, 52B of the Indian Forest Act whereas Regulation of Transit of forest produce and penalty for breach of rules are contained under Section 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. Issues raised were,Whether the Government and its officers are liable for damage or not? The court Held that Government shall not be responsible for any loss or damage which may occur in respect of any timber collected under Section 45, and no Forest Officer shall be responsible for any such loss or damage, unless he causes such loss or damage negligently, maliciously or fraudulently.The prosecution (Forest Department) failed to establish the charge against the respondent under Section 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act before the criminal court of competent jurisdiction and that after meticulously examining the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. An order of confiscation, the owner thereof is deprived of his right of property as contained in Article 300A of the Constitution.Appeal allowed.