J&K Forest Act | Confiscation Of Vehicle Carrying Non-Government Forest Produce Not Permissible Without Conviction Of Offender: High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary, has held that where seized forest produce is private property, the Authorized Officer cannot finalize confiscation of the carrier vehicles unless the offender has first been convicted in criminal proceedings. The Court clarified that independent confiscatory jurisdiction prior to conviction applies only when the offence involves government property. The ruling came in a petition challenging the confiscation of three trucks seized while transporting unfinished willow clefts without a valid transit permit.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking release of their trucks and compensation, contending that the vehicles had been unlawfully seized and retained by forest authorities. The dispute arose when three trucks owned by the petitioners were intercepted on 07.02.2012 near Sidhra Bridge, Jammu, while transporting unfinished willow clefts without obtaining permission under the Jammu & Kashmir Willow (Prohibition on Export and Movement) Act. The Forest Protection Force seized the vehicles along with the willow clefts under provisions of the J&K Forest Act and the Willow (Prohibition on Export and Movement) Act.
Following the seizure, the Divisional Forest Officer, acting as the Authorized Officer, initiated confiscation proceedings after informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Conservator of Forests. After hearing the parties, the Authorized Officer ordered confiscation of the vehicles along with the willow clefts. The petitioners challenged this order before the Chief Conservator of Forests acting as the appellate authority, which upheld the confiscation order.
Earlier, the petitioners had filed writ petitions before the High Court, which directed the Authorized Officer to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders after examining the objections and material on record. Pursuant to this direction, the Authorized Officer reconsidered the case and again ordered confiscation of the vehicles and willow clefts, concluding that the clefts were being transported outside the State in violation of the Willow Act. The appellate authority later upheld this order.
The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were illegal and arbitrary, asserting that there was no material showing their knowledge or consent regarding transportation of willow clefts. They also argued that no criminal proceedings had been initiated and no FIR had been registered. The respondents contended that the seizure and confiscation proceedings were lawful and conducted in accordance with statutory provisions governing forest produce and transportation of willow.
The Court examined the statutory provisions governing prohibition, seizure, and confiscation under the Willow (Prohibition on Export and Movement) Act and the J&K Forest Act.
The Court observed “Section 3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Willow (Prohibition of Export and Movement) Act, 2000 provides for prohibition on the carriage and export of willow.” The Court further recorded “any forest officer… may seize the willow and the carrier in which it is being carried, if he finds or has reasons to believe that the willow is being carried for export or attempted to be carried for export in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of this Act.”
While analysing the statutory framework, the Court stated “the procedure provided under Section 26 of the Forest Act with regard to confiscation is also subject to Section 28 of the Act, which provides as to how seized forest produce, tools, etc. which are not government property are to be dealt with.” The Court further recorded “Section 28 of the Forest Act, explicitly provides that the seized property and the carrier are to be confiscated, upon conviction of the offender for such offence.”
Examining the factual record, the Court noted that no criminal case had been initiated. The Court recorded “it is an admitted case that the matter was not reported to Police for investigation, as such, no criminal case was registered.”
Interpreting the provisions together, the Court observed “on a harmonious construction of Sections 3 and 4 of the Willow (Prohibition on Export) Act 2000 read with… Sections 26 and 28 of the J&K Forest Act, it crystallizes that the confiscatory jurisdiction can be exercised by the Authorized Officer, upon conviction of the offender and not earlier to it or without it.”
Referring to precedent, the Court stated “the provisions of the Act do not permit Specified Officer to deal with the property seized for commission of the offence until and unless final decision in the criminal proceedings are not taken.” The Court further recorded “if seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property confiscated, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt.”
The Court then clarified the legal position and stated “Authorized Officer is competent to pass order of confiscation with regard to seized forest property… without waiting for the conclusion of trial… when forest offence is in respect of government property.” However, the Court further recorded “Authorized Officer is not competent to pass confiscation order with regard to reported seized property in respect of a forest offence, in case of a non-government property, until and unless conviction of the offender is recorded by the Magistrate.”
The Court concluded “in the case of non-governmental property… confiscation proceedings cannot be finalized or confiscation order passed, until the conviction of the offenders in the case.”
The Court directed “the petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Authorized Officer as well as Appellate Authority are hereby quashed. The petitioners’ vehicle Nos. JK03B-9023, JK13A-4510 and JK13B-4498 are ordered to be finally released in their favour.”
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of along with the connected applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: Mohd. Ashraf Dar & Ors. v. State (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: JKLHC-JMU:691
Case Number: OWP No. 499/2014
Bench: Justice M A Chowdhary
