The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 cannot be sustained where there is no evidence or cogent material showing that the seized items constitute \”forest produce\”. The judgment upholds established legal principles and serves as binding precedent for subordinate courts in similar cases involving alleged forest offences and confiscation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/4935/2025 of NISHANT KUMAR VERMA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010287782025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled principles; quashes confiscation without evidence |
| Type of Law | Forest Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that confiscation orders under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 cannot be sustained where there is no cogent evidence showing that the seized goods (stone chips, in this case) fall under the statutory definition of “forest produce.” The existence of a valid and verified challan was found sufficient to establish that the transportation was part of a legitimate business. Findings recorded by authorities based only on suspicion or secret information, without supporting material or proof of mining from a forest area, are perverse and not sustainable in law. The court further held that per the Supreme Court’s precedent in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405, no new materials can be added to strengthen the order by affidavit at a later stage. On these bases, all impugned confiscation and appellate orders were set aside and the vehicle released. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (1978) 1 SCC 405 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Admissibility of evidence; principle that findings must be based on record; bar against supplementing adverse orders by affidavits; legal definition and proof of “forest produce.” |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Truck intercepted on suspicion of transporting stone chips illegally; FIR and confiscation initiated under the Indian Forest Act and IPC; valid challan produced and verified; authorities proceeded without proof that stone chips were forest produce or sourced from a forest area. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly in forest law and administrative review matters |
| Follows | Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confiscation under the Indian Forest Act cannot be sustained unless there is concrete evidence that the seized object is “forest produce” as defined by statute.
- Verified and genuine documentation (like a challan) establishing the legitimacy of the business can rebut allegations of illegal transport.
- Authorities cannot supplement the reasoning in impugned orders through affidavits or submissions post facto; the order must stand on its own reasoning as per Mohinder Singh Gill.
- Findings made only on the basis of suspicion or secret information, without substantive material evidence, are considered perverse in law and liable to be set aside.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the absence of any cogent material or evidence that the transported stone chips qualified as “forest produce” or were mined from a forest area.
- It was observed that the petitioner possessed a valid and verified challan, which was acknowledged even in the appellate order, negating the allegation of illegal transport.
- The confiscation proceedings and subsequent appellate and revisional orders were found to be based merely on secret information and not on substantive evidence.
- The judgment reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s principle from Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405: an administrative order must be judged by the reasons contained in it, not by subsequent affidavits.
- The court emphasized the settled law that findings recorded without evidence are perverse and not sustainable.
- Accordingly, the High Court quashed all orders resulting from such findings and ordered immediate release of the confiscated vehicle.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- There is no material or evidence to suggest that the seized stone chips were “forest produce.”
- The challan produced by the petitioner was verified and found genuine, as reflected in the appellate order; thus, no offence is made out.
Respondent (State)
- The respondents defended the impugned orders but could not point to any material showing that stone chips came under the definition of “forest produce.”
Factual Background
The dispute arose when the petitioner’s truck was intercepted by forest officials on 26.05.2022, based on secret information alleging illegal transport of stone chips without proper documents. An offence report was prepared under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Sections 41/42 & 52) and various sections of the IPC, leading to confiscation proceedings. Despite the production and verification of a genuine challan by the petitioner, authorities proceeded with confiscation, upheld by appellate and revisional orders. This sequence prompted the writ petition challenging the legality of the confiscation.
Statutory Analysis
- The proceedings involved interpretation of Sections 41, 42, and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, pertaining to seizure, confiscation, and transport of forest produce.
- The judgment analyzes the definition of “forest produce” and the requirement that authorities provide substantive evidence that seized goods qualify under this definition.
- The Supreme Court’s precedent in Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) 1 SCC 405 was applied to bar the supplementation of reasons for impugned orders via counter affidavits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and reaffirms established legal principles regarding administrative orders and the necessity of evidence in confiscation proceedings.