Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has held that there is no bar under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, against Advocates appearing before the authorized forest officer in confiscation proceedings. Justice Vishal Dhagat recorded that “Advocates can appear before authorized forest officer in confiscation proceedings” in view of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court quashed the order of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 15.01.2025, which had denied the petitioner the right to be represented by an Advocate during the confiscation proceedings.

The Court, however, stated that although Advocates may appear in such proceedings, they would not have the right to cross-examine statements or affidavits filed in the course of confiscation. The petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek documents from the office of the Forest Ranger and submit evidence.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Disclosure Statements Under Section 27 Evidence Act Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration

The petitioner, having filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the confiscation proceedings and the specific order dated 15.01.2025 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.) that restricted him from engaging an Advocate in the confiscation process. The petitioner submitted that he was not provided with the requisite documents necessary to oppose the confiscation of his vehicle effectively.

It was contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is no provision under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, that bars legal representation by an Advocate in confiscation proceedings. The petitioner argued that the denial of such representation amounted to a violation of the statutory right conferred under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which grants Advocates the right to appear before any Tribunal or authority legally authorized to take evidence. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kuldeep Sharma v. State of M.P., 2012 (2) MPLJ 453, to argue that while evidence may not be recorded in the conventional sense, documents, affidavits, and statements are indeed part of the evidentiary process before the forest authorities.

The petitioner sought quashing of the D.F.O.’s order and requested liberty to file an application for obtaining relevant documents from the Forest Ranger’s office in Niwari to enable the filing of his defense and supporting evidence against the confiscation proceedings.

In response, the respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, opposed the petition. It was argued that based on the judgment in Kuldeep Sharma (supra), Advocates are barred from appearing in confiscation proceedings and that the restriction under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, is justified. The respondents further submitted that no actionable grievance existed for challenging the ongoing confiscation proceedings initiated by the forest authorities.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing the dispute. Justice Vishal Dhagat recorded that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 grants Advocates “the right to appear before any Tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence.” The Court observed that in confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the authorized officer is empowered to take evidence, including statements, affidavits, and other documentary materials.

The Court stated that “in case of confiscation, authority takes evidence from Forest Department and from owner of vehicle involved in forest offence.” Further, it was recorded that the submission of documents, affidavits, and recorded statements constitutes evidence within the meaning of Section 30 of the Advocates Act.

Justice Dhagat recorded that “there is no bar under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 from appearance of Advocates in said proceedings.” The Court acknowledged that the prior judgment in Kuldeep Sharma (supra) does not expressly bar representation by Advocates, but rather noted the absence of cross-examination in such proceedings.

Also Read: “Fraud Vitiates Everything”: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cancels MBBS Admission as EWS Certificate Obtained Through “Misrepresentation of Material Facts”

In clarifying the permissible scope of representation, the Court stated that “Advocates will not have any right to cross-examination on statement or affidavits filed in proceeding of confiscation.” However, their right to appear and assist their clients remains intact under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In conclusion, the Court quashed the order dated 15.01.2025 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer and granted the petitioner liberty to apply for relevant documents from the office of the Forest Ranger at Niwari. The Court stated that “order of D.F.O. dated 15.01.2025 is quashed. Petitioner is granted liberty to file an application to get documents from office of Forest Ranger, Niwari and file its evidence.”

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate

Case Title: Bhagban Singh Parmar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:11947
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7841 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vishal Dhagat

[Read/Download order]