JUDGMENT
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.
1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the learned District Judge at Cooch Behar in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2004. The appeal was filed against an order of confiscation dated January 12, 2004 in respect of a pick-up van bearing registration No. WB-69/ 1490.
2. It is alleged that on June 23, 2003 it was found that the said pick-up van was carrying some teak block timbers without any transit pass. The vehicle was intercepted and was, ultimately, seized.
3. Although various testimonies were taken, but it was found b y the Tribunal below, as findings of fact, that the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle had no authority to carry the confiscated timbers. Therefore, the authorised officer directed confiscation of the vehicle as the vehicle was involved with an offence of carrying unauthorised forest produce.
4. The learned District Judge affirmed the order of the authorised officer, Divisional Forest Office, Cooch Behar Division.
5. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, draws my attention to a decision in the case of Jiban Aich v. State of West Bengal and Anr., reported in 2003 C Cr. LR (Cal) 929, particularly, to the observations made therein as under:
“Whereas the vehicle in question used for removing the forest produce cannot be presumed in all circumstances will be used only for committing such forest offence if released on condition. But such release should be on such strict terms and conditions that will have a deterrent effect on the owner of the same to indulge further in such activities of committing forest offence in future. Because in any event under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, upon such confiscation the vehicle in question would be required to be sold in auction. In such case cither the appellant-owner-petitioner or some other person would be entitled to purchase the same in such public auction. Thus, the purpose of the Act being to derive some fiscal benefit out of such confiscation, I am of the view that release of such vehicle upon payment of an amount which will have some deterrent effect upon the appellant-petitioner-owner will suffice the purpose.”
6. Therefore, the Court’s power to release the vehicle by imposing fine in lieu of confiscation is well-settled.
7. In my view, in this case justice will be subserved if the orders impugned are modified and the Divisional Forest Officer, Cooch Behar Division is directed to release the confiscated vehicle to the owner upon payment of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand) only by the owner of the vehicle and upon obtaining an affidavit from the owner of the vehicle that he shall not be involved with any further offence of carrying unauthorised forest produce in future. The vehicle shall be released within a period of two weeks from the date of filing such affidavit and of payment, as above.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
10. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.
