Consequently, 252 tins of resin along with the truck were seized.
It was pointed out that by Amendment Act certain amendments were carried out in the Act in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Background facts giving rise to the present dispute essentially are as follows On 12.10.1992, the Station House Officer, Nalagarh intercepted a truck bearing No.
The said petition was directed against judgment dated 13.12.1993 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, in an appeal under Section 59 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in short the Act as amended by the Indian Forest Act Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment Act, 1991, hereinafter referred to as Amendment Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Two new Sections, namely, 59 A and B were also inserted.
In view of the materials on record and evidence led by the parties the Authorised Officer passed an order directing companyfiscation of the truck.
On being required to produce the necessary export permit with regard to the articles, he failed to do so.
The owner of the truck i.e. the present respondent submitted that numberresin was carried and transported in his truck.
HIA 6947 at about 7.45 a.m. near the sale depot of Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation on Nalagarh Ram Shehar road.
On receipt of the report, the Authorised Officer issued numberice to Mast Ram who claimed to be the owner of articles and Harcharan Singh, and Dhanwant Singh driver and owner of the truck respectively.
It was held that order of the Authorised Officer was without jurisdiction.
Since forest offence was believed to have been companymitted in respect of the seized articles, which was companysidered to be the property of the State Government, a report to the Forest Officer Nalagarh was made.
The respondent took preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision application on the ground that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal under Section 59 2 was final in terms of the Amendment Act.
A revision was filed before the High Court.
For arriving at such companyclusion, learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that since offence was companymitted in respect of property, which according to the Appellate Judge was number claimed to be States property despite the indisputable fact that there is a statutory presumption, as to such properties forest produce being the properties of the State, the Authorized Officer had numberjurisdiction to pass the order.
Out of the quantity found on search, 186 tins of resin bore the mark MR 92 while 56 tins bore the mark One Mast Ram who was traveling in the truck claimed that the tins belonged to him.
By virtue of the Amendment Act Sections 52 A and B were inserted in the Act, so far as its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh are companycerned w.e.f 9.7.1991.
On search being carried out, 252 tins of resin were found being transported in the said truck.
The said order was assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Solan by way of an appeal.
The appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 13.12.1993.
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. The State of Himachal Pradesh questions legality of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holding that the petition filed by the State for revision under Section 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code was number maintainable.
