JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No. 3 confiscation case No. 9/99 whereby and whereunder the ‘Kahtal” and “Gambhar” logs were confiscated with a direction upon the respondent No. 4 to auction the same. The petitioner also prays for quashing the order dated 18.5.2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Confiscation Appeal No. 11/2001 dismissing the appeal which the petitioner had filed against the aforementioned order dated 9.7.2001.
2. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the ‘Kathal’ logs in favour of the petitioner.
3. The facts which are relevant to be taken note of the are that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Khunti Timber. He obtained a license in the year 1996 under Section 4 of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation Rules, 1993 which was registered as license No. 66/96 (Annexure-1). The petitioner states that on 8.3.1999 he came to learn that a raid had been conducted by the respondent No. 4 who has seized 84 logs of ‘Gambhar” and 626 logs of ‘Kathal”. The petitioner states that a seizure list was prepared and it was handed over to the father of the petitioner. All this according to the petitioner, happened while he was not present in the timber yard. The petitioner further makes a grievance that the respondent No. 4 seized the logs without following the procedure as laid down under the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 and that there were no independent witnesses who were present and also that in the column of witnesses, two employees of the Department of Forest put their signatures which was in total and complete violation of the provisions of the Section 8(2) of the aforementioned Act.
4. Thereafter a prosecution report was prepared on 28.4.1999 (Annexure-3) stating that the respondent No. 4 had conducted a physical verification in which he had found irregularities.
5. The petitioner states that from the prosecution report itself it will be evident that one Paduman Singh Munda had forcibly off loaded the ‘Gambhar” logs in question in the timber yard of the petitioner in his absence. Upon being asked, he gave a statement before the respondent No. 4 that he had felled the timber from his own field situated on Plot No. 1042, Khata No. 37 for his own personal use. According to the petitioner, the “Gambhar” logs were, in fact, off loaded by Paduman Singh Munda on 3.3.1999 itself at a time when the petitioner had gone to Bokaro to attend the festival of Holi where his wife was staying with her father and under the treatment of a local doctor of Bokaro. The petitioner has further stated that the moment he came to learn that some “Gambhar” logs had been kept in his timber yard, he immediately returned to Khunti on 4.3.1999 and on the same day, he gave a written information to the respondent No. 4 by Annexure-4. By the said information, the petitioner informed the respondent No. 4 that his Munsi had informed him about the keeping of the “Gambhar” logs by Paduman Singh Munda who had brought it for purposes of getting them sawed. The petitioner further makes a grievance that the manner in which this prosecution report was prepared go to show sharp contradictions.
6. On the basis of the prosecution report of the respondent No. 4, a Confiscation proceeding, being Confiscation Case No. 9/1999 was initiated by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner appeared in that case and stated all the facts including the fact that he had purchased the “Kathal” logs from one Vishwakarma Saw Mill, Torpa Road, Khunti. He produced the receipt also in support of the aforementioned statement (Annexure-10 series herein) and also submitted that so far as the “Gambhar” logs are concerned, the same were forcibly dropped by Paduman Singh Munda in his absence and that this fact was duly intimated to the respondent No. 4. He also complained that in spite thereof, the logs had been seized. The petitioner further complains that in spite of all these explanations, the confiscating authority passed the impugned order on 9.7.2001 wrongly holding that the petitioner was a habitual offender having been involved in an earlier Confiscation Case No. 34/96. The petitioner states that in fact the reference to the earlier case was a total non-application of mind because that had been set aside by the conservator of forests in appeal vide Appeal No. 10/-97.
7. However, being, aggrieved by the order dated 9.7.2001, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 being Appeal No. 11/2001 but even he dismissed the appeal without considering the facts and circumstances in their proper perspective vide his order dated 18.5.2002 as contained in Annexure-8.
8. Thus, according to the petitioner, the “Gambhar” logs were forcibly kept by Paduman Singh Munda whereas the “Kathal” logs were purchased by the petitioner and for which he had produced receipt vide Annexure- 3 0 series.
9. An Amendment Application was filed in this case being I.A. No. 1654 of 2002. In the said application the petitioner has stated that after filing of the writ petition certain new developments have taken place and they include the issuance of the letters dated 30.5.2002 and 4.9.2002 (Annexure-11 and 11/A) whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been asked to show cause as to why his license be not cancelled and accordingly, after issuance of the aforementioned letter, a cancellation proceeding was initiated against the Saw Mill. The petitioner therefore, by reason of the aforementioned Amendment Application prayed for quashing of the same also,
10. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 it has been stated that the petitioner should have approached the revisional authority instead of moving this writ petition. They have further stated that the seized logs were actually found unaccounted for and had been obtained unlawfully in violation of Section 10 of the Act. The authorities under the Act passed the impugned order after full consideration and the stock register proved irregularities in relation to the timber.
11. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the submission of the offence report cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the Magistrate who issued summons whereafter cognizance was taken. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP (Cr) No. 55 of 2003 and by an order dated 16.7.2003 a Single Judge of this Court held that since cognizance had been taken beyond the period of limitation, therefore the same was bad and cannot be allowed to continue. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar relies upon Annexure-A appended to the application filed for stay of the proceedings relating to cancellation of the license. He further submitted that pursuant to the aforementioned order of the High Court, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti passed his order on 16.9.2003 wherein he held that “prosecution report in this case after expiry of more than six years” was not acceptable and since the prosecution report had been filed beyond the period of limitation therefore, the same was barred under Section 468, Cr PC.
12. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar therefore argued that since the prosecution report has not been accepted and since the cognizance has been quashed, therefore the very basis of the confiscation case automatically becomes dead and therefore, the entire confiscation proceeding should be quashed by this Court.
13. It is evident that the confiscation proceeding is under the provisions of the aforementioned Act, which is altogether a separate proceeding and it is in addition to criminal proceeding before a Magistrate.
14. Upon perusal of Section 13 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 it is evident that the orders are revisable.
15. When the confiscation proceeding has ended against the petitioner and when the appeal has also been dismissed, this Court under Article 226 cannot reappreciate evidence and give a finding contrary to finding of fact such as the findings as to whether the logs belonged to the petitioner or to Paduman Singh Munda. This Court also cannot give a finding as to whether the stock register maintained was correct or not. In that view of the matter no relief can be granted to the petitioner in a writ petition. The petitioner, if so advised, may take recourse to the alternative statutory forum prescribed in such matters.
Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.