2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 1 of 23

REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

I. Crl. Rev. P. No. 17 of 2016

1. The State of Manipur through the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest &

Environment), Government of Manipur.

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Thoubal Forest Division.

… Petitioners

-Versus-

Oinam Ranjit Singh aged about 32 years, s/o O. Ibobi Singh of Oinam

Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur, the registered

owner of the Tata Truck (Vehicle) bearing registration no. MN-05C/2523.

… Respondent

With

II. Crl. Rev. P. No. 18 of 2016

1. The State of Manipur through the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest &

Environment), Government of Manipur.

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Thoubal Forest Division.

… Petitioners

-Versus-

Suankhogin Ngaite, aged about 70 years, s/o late Pusuam of Lamsang

village P.O. & P.S Churachandpur District, Manipur, the registered owner

of the Tata Truck (Vehicle) bearing registration No. MN-02A/6344.

… Respondent

With

III. Crl. Rev. P. No. 19 of 2016

1. The State of Manipur through the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest &

Environment), Government of Manipur.

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 2 of 23

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Thoubal Forest Division.

… Petitioners

-Versus-

Oinam Gunamani Singh, aged about 36 years, s/o O. Angouba Singh of

Oinam Mamang Leikai, P.O & P.S Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur, the

registered owner of the Tata Truck (Vehicle) bearing registration No. MN-

03T/1051.

… Respondent

With

IV. Crl. Rev. P. No. 20 of 2016

1. The State of Manipur through the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest &

Environment), Government of Manipur.

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Thoubal Forest Division.

… Petitioners

-Versus-

Thiyam Amumacha Meitei, aged about 72 years, s/o Th. Udhop Meitei of

Khabam Lamkhai, P.O Mantripukhri & P.S Heingang, Imphal East District,

Manipur, the registered owner of the Tata Truck (Vehicle) bearing

registration No. MN-06T/0741.

… Respondent

With

V. MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the petitioners : Mr. Y. Ashang, PP & Mrs. RK. Emily, Dy. GA.

For the respondent : Mr. M. Gunedhor, Adv. & Ms. L. Ashapriya, Adv.

Date of reserved : 12.03.2026

Date of Judgement : 23.07.2026

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 3 of 23

JUDGEMENT & ORDER

(CAV)

[1] Heard Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP assisted by Mrs. RK. Emily,

learned Dy. GA on behalf of the State petitioners and Mr. M. Gunedhor,

learned counsel along with Ms. L. Ashapriya, learned counsel for the

respondents.

[2] These 4(four) Criminal Revision Petitions i.e. Cril. Rev. P.

Nos. 17 of 2016, 18 of 2016, 19 of 2016 & 20 of 2016 have been filed

under Sections 401 & 482 of CrPC, 1973 by the State of Manipur, being

aggrieved by common judgment & order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the

Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal in Cril. Appeal Case Nos. 2 of 2016, 3 of 2016,

4 of 2016 & 5 of 2016. By the impugned order dated 17.08.2016, the Ld.

Sessions Judge, Thoubal set aside the common order dated 13.05.2016

passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Thoubal in Cril. Misc.

Case No. 66 of 2016 [Ref: Cril (Complaint) Case no. 73 of 2016]. By the

order dated 13.05.2016, the Ld. CJM, Thoubal rejected the claim of the

respondents herein, who are the vehicle owners and directed the 4(four)

vehicles involved in forest offence be confiscated under Section 452 of Cr

PC, 1973 read with Sections 54 & 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and

vehicles be disposed of by auction sale and deposited as per law. Since

the 4(four) vehicles are involved in the same offence, these 4(four)

Criminal Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

Brief facts of the present cases are as follows:-

[3] On 06.04.2016 at about 11:00 am, the police personnel of

Khongjom Police Station apprehended 4(four) drivers namely (1) Shri.

Ningthoujam Manilal Singh (2) Shri. Khundrakpam Hemanta Singh (3) Shri.

Thingbaijam Kumar Singh and (4) Shri. Angam Haokip along with four Tata

Trucks bearing No. MNO6T/0741, MNO3T/1051, MNO5C/2523 and

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 4 of 23

MN02A/6344, for illegal possession and transportation of 52 round logs of

Khangra (Dipterocarpus tuberculatus) having volume of 51.31 cu. M. which

is A-1 Class timber without any valid documents or permits. The four

apprehended drivers along with the seized four Tata Trucks and Timber

(Khangra) were handed over to the Forest Kakching Range Office. On

07.04.2016, DFO, Thoubal forwarded the four Accused Drivers along with

report of the seizures of timber (Khangra) and four Tata Trucks before the

Ld. CJM, Thoubal for trial under Sections 41(2), 52(1) of the Indian Forest

Act read with Rules 33 (a) and 38 of the Manipur Forest Rules, 1971 and

that the real owner of the timber, so claimed to be Premkumar Singh be

traced out and punished as per law of the land. On the same day, i.e., on

07.04. 2016, the Ld. CJM, Thoubal took cognizance of the offence U/s

33(a) and 38 of the Manipur Forest Rules, 1971 against the four Accused

drivers and convicted them on their respective plea of guilty and sentenced

each of them till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 500/-. After conclusion

of the trial, disposal of the seized timber and the four Tata Trucks was

taken up by the Ld. CJM, Thoubal under Cril. Misc. Case No. 66 of 2016.

The Ld. CJM, Thoubal vide its order dated 13.05.2015 gave a finding that

the persons claiming to be owner of the seized Tata Trucks respectively

could not prove that their vehicles were used in committing the forest

offence without their knowledge and connivance. Hence, it was ordered

that the four Tata Trucks be confiscated to the Govt. of Manipur. Vide

order dated 29.04.2016 in Cril. Misc. Case no. 66 of 2016 [Ref: Cril.

(Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2016], Ld. CJM, Thoubal confiscated the 52

round logs of Khangra (timber) and directed the same to be disposed of

by auction sale and proceeds be deposited as per law. Thereafter, by

another order dated 13.05.2026 in Cril. Misc. Case No. 66 of 2016 [Ref:

Cril. (Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2016] (which was impugned before the

Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal), Ld. CJM, Thoubal rejected the application of

the 4(four) owners of the truck (who are respondents herein) and directed

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 5 of 23

the vehicles to be confiscated under Section 452 of CrPC read with Sections

54 & 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and directed to dispose of the same

by way of auction sale and proceeds be deposited as per law. While

rejecting the application of the four truck owners, Ld. CJM, Thoubal heavily

relied on the identical statement of the four drivers of the truck recorded

by RFO, Kakching to the fact that the owners of the truck informed the

drivers to go to Koijam Maring Village near Kongjom for loading of timbers.

The four owners of the truck preferred four similar appeals being Cril.

Appeal No. 2 of 2016 by Mr. Oinam Ranjit Singh, Cril. Appeal No. 3 of 2016

by Mr. Thiyam Amumacha Meitei, Cril. Appeal No. 4 of 2016 by Mr.

Suankhogin Ngaite & Cril. Appeal No. 5 of 2016 by Mr. Oinam Gunamani

Singh against the common order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Ld. CJM,

Thoubal in Cril. Misc. Case No. 66 of 2016 [Ref: Cril. (Complaint) Case No.

73 of 2016]. The common grounds in the appeals are :- (i) no opportunity

has been given to the appellants (who are respondents herein) to present

their respective cases, (ii) the Court below error in law as well as facts in

making the findings based on statement given by the four Accused

(Drivers), (iii) the Court below has failed to peruse the relevant records of

the case, (iv) the evidence relied upon is not at all sufficient, adequate and

reliable, (v) the four appellants were not forwarded for trial in the case &

(vi) the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is liable to be set

aside.

[4] The owners of the vehicles filed MC(Cril. Rev. P.) No. 5 of

2016, 6 of 2016, 4 of 2016 and 3 of 2016 in Cril. Rev. P. Nos. 17 of 2016,

18 of 2016, 19 of 2016 & 20 of 2016 respectively for releasing the vehicles

to the owners during the pendency of the present Cril. Revision petitions.

Vide similar orders dated 05.12.2016, this Court allowed the application

and directed to release the vehicles on executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/-

with surety of like amount and with further directed that the vehicles

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 6 of 23

should not be used in the transportation of the forest produce during the

pendency of the present Cril. Revision petitions. MC(Cril. Rev. P.) No. 7 of

2016 was also filed for clarification of the order dated 05.12.2016 for

releasing vehicles seeking a relief to clarify the identity of the authority to

whom the bonds have to be submitted and vide order dated 20.12.2016,

MC(Cril. Rev. P.) No. 7 of 2016 was allowed by directing the bonds to be

submitted before the Ld. CJM, Thoubal. MC(Cril. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 is

also filed for bringing on record the copy of the order dated 05.12.2016

passed by this Court in MC(Cril. Rev. P.) No. 5 of 2016, 6 of 2016, 4 of

2016 and 3 of 2016 along with MC(Cril. Rev. P.) No. 7 of 2016.

[5] In the impugned common judgment dated 17.08.2016, Ld.

Sessions Judge, Thoubal held that the registered owners of the trucks were

not the owners of the seized timbers and the trucks were available for

hiring by any person on payment of hiring charges. The truck owners had

no knowledge that the timbers collected/loaded by the trucks were illegal.

It was further held that the burden of proving that the four registered

owners of the seized vehicles had knowledge and connivance of the

commission of the forest offence with the owners of the timbers, is on the

prosecution. It was further observed that the doctrine of administration of

criminal justice is that, “Accused shall be presumed to be innocent until

proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt”. It was observed that there was

no material evidence placed on record by the prosecution that the four

owners (respondents herein) had knowledge and connivance in the

commission of the forest offence. The admitted fact is that the owner of

the timbers hired the four trucks for transportation on payment of hiring

charge, and not beyond that. It was further observed that the word “shall

be liable for confiscation” in Section 55 of the Forest Act, 1927 does not

mean that property stands automatically confiscated and it should be

presupposed that an opportunity should be given to the person affected

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 7 of 23

before confiscation. In the conclusion, Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal set

aside the order dated 13.05.2026 of Ld. CJM, Thoubal and four trucks were

directed to be released to the registered owners, who are respondents

herein.

[6] Being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated

17.08.2016 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal in Cril. Appeal Case

Nos. 2 of 2016, 3 of 2016, 4 of 2016 & 5 of 2016, State authorities

preferred the present Cril. Revision Petition Nos. 17 of 2016, 18 of 2016,

19 of 2016 & 20 of 2016 inter-alia on the following grounds:-

(i) Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal while passing the impugned

order has failed to appreciate the mandate and object of the

provision of the Sections 52, 54, 55, 56 and 59 of the Indian

Forest Act, 1927 and also misinterpreted the same while

passing the present impugned judgment and order.

(ii) Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal while passing the impugned

judgment and order had failed to apply its judicious mind

and also ignored the settled position of law of the land.

(iii) Ld. Sessions Court failed to take into consideration the

factual position of the case on the basis of which Ld. Trial

Court passed the judgment and order thereby arriving at a

wrong findings and conclusion and passed the judgment and

order which is contrary to the well settled proposition of law

as laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases.

(iv) Ld. Sessions Court has erred in allowing the Respondents to

take the Tata Trucks which were used for

carrying/transporting the illegal timbers by committing forest

offence without any valid documents or permit which is

against the statutory provisions as well as the decisions

rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in series of cases.

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 8 of 23

(v) In view of the reasons and grounds stated above, if the

impugned judgment and order of the Ld. Sessions Judge,

Thoubal is allowed to stand in the present form, the mandate

and objective of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Rules

framed thereunder would be frustrated and the respondent

will continue such forest offence. Consequently, it will cause

miscarriage of justice.

(vi) In the facts and circumstances of the Case, the Ld. Sessions

Court has grossly misinterpreted and abused the provision of

the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

(vii) By releasing the Tata Trucks, great injustice has been caused

to the State.

(viii) The impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set

aside in the interest of justice.

(ix) There are various grounds for setting aside the impugned

order which may be allowed to be urged at the time of

hearing.

[7] Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP draws the attention of this Court

to the provision of Sections 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 & 59 of the Indian Forest

Act, 1927. He submits that Section 52 of the Act empowers seizure of

property involved in forest offence liable to be confiscated; Section 53 of

the Act enables the RFO to release property seized under Section 52 during

the pendency of the trial; Section 54 of the Act empowers the Magistrate

to take measures as may be necessary for the arrest and trial of the

offender and the disposal of the property as per law; Section 55 of the Act

empowers forest produce, tools etc. used in forest offence liable to be

confiscated; Section 56 of the Act empowers disposal on conclusion of trial

for forest offence of produce in respect of which it was committed; Section

59 of the Act provides appeal from orders under Sections 55, 56 & 57,

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 9 of 23

appeal to the Court to which orders made by Magistrate are ordinarily

appealable and the order passed on such appeal shall be final. Learned PP

further submits that Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal has misinterpreted the

provisions of Sections 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 & 59 of the Indian Forest Act,

1927. From the statement of the truck drivers recorded by the RFO, it is

clear that the drivers loaded the timbers on the instructions of the

respective owners and in a special offence under Forest Act; when the

owner of timbers is not the owners of the vehicle; the onus is on the

owners of the vehicle to establish that they (owners of vehicles) do not

have any information that the timbers to be transported was procured

illegally or in violation of any provisions of the Indian Forest Act. The plea

of the four owners has been contradicted by the statements of the drivers.

Since the RFO is not a Police Officer, the statements recorded by him and

any confession made to him will not be hit by provision of Sections 25, 26,

29 & 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and as such, the statements of

the drivers would be admissible in the trial against the owners of the

vehicles. Learned PP refers to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of “State of West Bengal & Anr. vs. Manua Sarkar in Civil

Appeal no. 991 of 2002 order dated 27.02.2008”. The present case

relates to the forest offence under amended Sections 59A & 59B of the

Indian Forest Act, 1927 (West Bengal Amendment Act of 1988). Sub-

clause 2 of Section 59B of the Amendment Act stated that no order of

confiscation of any tool, rope chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made

under Section 59A, if the owner proves to the satisfaction of the authorized

officer that the tools, vehicle was used in carrying timber or forest produce

without knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent. It is

emphasized by learned PP that it is the owner, who has to prove that the

vehicle was used for carrying timber or other forest produce without his

knowledge or connivance or of his agent and his requirement is

mandatory. It is submitted that Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal was wrong in

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 10 of 23

observing that the prosecution was to prove that onus is on the

prosecution to prove that the owners of the vehicles had no knowledge

about the timber to be transported was illegally procured. Learned PP

refers to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of

Karnataka vs. K. Krishnan: (2000) 7 SCC 80, paras- 6, 7 & 8. Hon’ble

Supreme Court was interpreting Sections 71-A, 71-C, 71-G, 62 & 2(7) of

the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and was of the view that the provisions of

the Act are required to be strictly complied with and followed for the

purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted and liberal

approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable

to confiscate, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions

of the Act. Further, it was held that when any vehicle is seized on the

allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall

not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the

proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings,

if any. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would

be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been

involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would

tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Learned

PP has pointed out that in the present case Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal

was wrong in releasing the vehicles without making any further conditions.

Learned PP also refers to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

reported in 2002 (1) SCC 495 (State of West Bengal vs. Gopal

Sarkar) where, Rs. 20,000/- bond for in lieu of confiscation is too low and

is not enough. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by Ld.

Sessions Judge, Thoubal be set aside and order passed by Ld. CJM,

Thoubal, Judge be restored.

[8] On the other hand, Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel for the

respondents has pointed out that the judgment of ‘State of West Bengal

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 11 of 23

& Anr. vs. Manua Sarkar in Civil Appeal no. 991 of 2002’ cited by

learned PP is not applicable in the present case. It is pointed out that the

judgment refers to the West Bengal Amendment Act in Forest Act by

inserting Section 59B and the same is not applicable in the State of

Manipur. It is also pointed out that the case of “State of Karnataka vs.

K. Krishnan” (supra) is with respect to Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and

the same is not applicable in the State of Manipur. Learned counsel for the

respondents has pointed out that in both cases, it was held by Hon’ble

Supreme Court that confiscation notice have been issued to the owners of

the vehicle and in the present case, no notice was issued to the owners of

the vehicle and they appeared before the Ld. CJM, Thoubal themselves for

releasing of their vehicles. Secondly, it is submitted that confession by

drivers in the trial will not bound the owners of the vehicles, who are not

co-accused in the proceeding before Ld. CJM, Thoubal. Learned counsel

for the respondents refers to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

It is submitted that the confession by one accused may be taken into

consideration by the court as against such other co-accused who are being

tried together with the accused, who makes the confession. However,

learned counsel explains that such confession will not be applicable against

the persons, who is not a co-accused in the trial. He refers to Section 30

of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specially Illustration (b) appended to

Section 30 and the same reads as follows:-

SECTION 30. Consideration of proved confession affecting

person making it and others jointly under trial for same

offence.—When more persons than one are being tried

jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one

of such persons affecting himself and some other of such

persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 12 of 23

such confession as against such other person as well as

against the person who makes such confession.

[Explanation: “Offence” as used in this Section, includes the

abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.]

Illustrations:

(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is

proved that A said- “B and I murdered C”. The Court

may consider the effect of this confession as against

B.

(b) A is on trial for murder of C. There is evidence to show

that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said- “A

and I murder C”.

This statement may not be taken into

consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being

jointly tried.”

[9] Illustrations (b) to the effect that when a person is not a co-

accused in the joint trial, the confession by one of the accused shall not

have affect a person who is not co-accused in the same trial. It is

highlighted that in the present case, four owners of the vehicles are not

co-accused in the proceeding before Ld. CJM, Thoubal and as such, any

statement made by the drivers shall not affect them. It is submitted that

Ld. CJM, Thoubal was wrong in presuming that the statement of the drivers

made to the RFO can be considered against the owners of the vehicles to

establish that the owners have knowledge of transporting timbers in illegal

manner. It is submitted that the present Cril. Revision Petitions be

dismissed and order passed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal be affirmed.

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 13 of 23

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

[10] The points for determination arose in the present Cril. Rev.

petitions are

(i) Whether the owners of the vehicles would be

presumed to have knowledge about the commission of

forest offence i.e. transportation of illegal timber in

contravention of Indian Forest Act, 1927?

(ii) Whether the confessions by the accused (drivers of

the vehicles) shall have an affect on the owners of the

vehicles, who are not co-accused in the same criminal

proceeding in view of Section 30 of Evidence Act, 1872

read with Illustrations (a) and (b)?

[11] Before going into details, it will be relevant to reproduce

Sections 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 & 59 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the

same are reproduced below:

“52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation.—(1) When

there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been

committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce,

together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in

committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest-

officer or Police-officer. (2) Every officer seizing any

property under this section shall place on such property a

mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall,

as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the

Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account

of which the seizure has been made:

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 14 of 23

Provided that, when the forest-produce with respect

to which such offence is believed to have been committed

is the property of Government, and the offender is

unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon

as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official

superior.

53. Power to release property seized under section 52.—

Any Forest-officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger

who, or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats,

carts or cattle under section 52, may release the same on

the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the

production of the property so released, if and when so

required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the

offence on account of which the seizure has been made.

⁠54. Procedure thereupon.—Upon the receipt of any such

report, the Magistrate shall, with all convenient despatch,

take such measures as may be necessary for the arrest and

trial of the offender and the disposal of the property

according to law.

⁠55. Forest-produce, tools, etc., when liable to

confiscation.—(1) All timber or forest-produce which is not

the property of Government and in respect of which a

forest-offence has been committed, and all tools, boats,

carts and cattle used in committing any forest-offence, shall

be liable to confiscation. (2) Such confiscation may be in

addition to any other punishment prescribed for such

offence.

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 15 of 23

56. Disposal on conclusion of trial for forest-offence, of

produce in respect of which it was committed.-When the

trial of any forest-offence is concluded, any forest-produce

in respect of which such offence has been committed shall,

if it is the property of Government or has been confiscated,

be taken charge of by a Forest-officer, and, in any other

case, may be disposed of in such manner as the Court may

direct.

⁠57. Procedure when offender not known or cannot be

found.—When the offender is not known or cannot be

found, the Magistrate may, if he finds that an offence has

been committed, order the property in respect of which the

offence has been committed to be confiscated and taken

charge of by the Forest-officer, or to be made over to the

person whom the Magistrate deems to be entitled to the

same:

Provided that no such order shall be made until the

expiration of one month from the date of seizing such

property, or without hearing the person, if any, claiming

any right thereto, and the evidence, if any, which he may

produce in support of his claim.

58. Procedure as to perishable property seized under

section 52.—The Magistrate may, notwithstanding anything

hereinbefore contained, direct the sale of any property

seized under section 52 and subject to speedy and natural

decay, and may deal with the proceeds as he would have

dealt with such property if it had not been sold.

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 16 of 23

59. Appeal from orders under section 55, section 56 or

section 57.—The officer who made the seizure under

section 52, or any of his official superiors, or any person

claiming to be interested in the property so seized, may,

within one month from the date of any order passed under

section 55, section 56 or section 57, appeal therefrom to

the Court to which orders made by such Magistrate are

ordinarily appealable, and the order passed on such appeal

shall be final.”

[12] From the above provisions, it is cleared that Section 52 of

the Indian Forest Act, 1927 stipulates that when there is reason to believe

that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce,

along with tools, boats, carts or cattle etc. used in committing the offence

may be seized by the Forest officer and seized articles under Section 52

may be released by a Forest officer not below the rank of Ranger on a

bond that the owners of such vehicles or tools would produce the same

before the Magistrate, if so required. Upon receipt of a report from the

Authority, a Magistrate may take necessary steps for the arrest and trial

of the offender and the disposal of the property under the provision of

Section 54 of the Act. Section 55 of the Act provides for confiscation of

forest produce which is not the property of Government and all the tools,

boats, carts and vehicles used in committing forest offence shall be liable

for confiscation and such confiscation will be in addition to any other

punishment for prescribed for such offence. After the conclusion of the

trial of the forest offence, any forest produce which is the property of the

Government or which is confiscated shall be taken charge by a forest

officer and may be disposed of as directed by the Court in terms of the

provision of Section 56 of the Act. Section 57 deals a situation where the

offender is not known or cannot be found or in such case, Magistrate may

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 17 of 23

pass appropriate order for confiscation of the forest produce and the tools

used in committing of the offence. Section 58 of the Act provides for the

procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate for disposal of the perishable

property seized under Section 52. Section 59 of the Act provides appellate

forum for any order passed under Sections 55, 56 & 57 of the Act by a

Magistrate to the Court to which appeals are ordinarily appealable.

[13] It is clear from the wording of the provision of Section 52 of

the Act that prior to seizure of any forest produce or tools used in

committing the offence, there should be a reason to believe that forest

offence has been committed. This shows that the initial onus of discharging

the burden should be on the prosecution in view of Section 101 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It will be wrong to shift the initial onus of

proving the absence of knowledge for committing a forest offence to an

accused/any persons thereof, when the statute does not cast any reverse

presumption of such offence on the accused. On plain reading of the

provision of Section 52, this Court does not find any duty cast on the

accused to deny the commission of forest offence on the accused or any

other persons, as the provision is clear that the existence of the reason to

believe the commission of forest offence should be on the prosecution.

This Court is of the view that Ld. CJM, Thoubal was wrong in presuming

that forest offence has been committed qua the owners of the vehicle.

[14] Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel has rightly pointed out

that the judgment cited by learned PP in the cases of State of West

Bengal & Anr. vs. Manua Sarkar (Supra) and State of Karnataka vs.

K. Krishnan (Supra) are not applicable in the present case. While Manua

Sarkar (Supra) is the case based on West Bengal Amendment of Sections

59A & B of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Amendment is not applicable

in the State of Manipur. The case of K. Krishnan (Supra) is with respect

to Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the provision is not applicable in the

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 18 of 23

State of Manipur. It is also admitted fact that there is no similar

Amendment for the State of Manipur. This Court is of the view that the

decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two cases will not be

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the cases.

[15] With regard to the findings of Ld. CJM, Thoubal that as per

the confession made by the drivers of the vehicles (who have already been

convicted on plea of guilty) to the fact that the owners of the vehicle

instructed them to load the timber from Koijam Maring Village near

Kongjom and as such, the owners of the vehicle have knowledge on the

commission of forest Act. This Court is of the view that Ld. CJM, Thoubal

was wrong in presuming that the owners of the vehicles had knowledge

of the commission of the forest offence in absence of any information or

indication to the owners that the timbers requested to be transported were

illegally procured in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. As

observed above, Section 52 requires existence of reasonable materials for

the commission of forest offence and in absence of any information,

indication or material hints that the timbers were illegally procured, it

would not be proper to presume that the owners of the vehicles have

knowledge that the forest produce was illegally procured. As observed

earlier, provision of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 casts the

initial onus of proving existence of foreign materials for commission of

forest offence will always be on the prosecution and in absence of any

statutory presumption (like in the nature of Section 304B IPC and Sections

29 & 30 of POCSO Act, so on), the initial onus of proving existence of

forest offence cannot be shifted on the accused or any persons for refuting

the same in absence of clause of reverse presumption on the accused.

[16] In the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.: (1952)

1 SCC 275, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below with respect to Section

30 of Evidence Act.

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 19 of 23

10. In our opinion, the matter was put succinctly by Sir Lawrence

Jenkins in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan, where he said that such a

confession can only be used to “lend assurance to other evidence

against a co-accused” or, to put it in another way, as Reilly, J. did in

Periyaswami Moopan, In re [Periyaswami Moopan, In re, ILR (1931)

54 Mad 75 at p. 77 : 1930 SCC OnLine Mad 86] :

“… the provision goes no further than this—where there is

evidence against the co-accused sufficient, if believed, to

support his conviction, then the kind of confession described in

Section 30 may be thrown into the scale as an additional reason

for believing that evidence.”

12. Then, as regards its use in the corroboration of accomplices and

approvers. A co-accused who confesses is naturally an accomplice

and the danger of using the testimony of one accomplice to

corroborate another has repeatedly been pointed out. The danger is

in no way lessened when the “evidence” is not on oath and cannot

be tested by cross-examination. Prudence will dictate the same rule

of caution in the case of a witness who though not an accomplice is

regarded by the Judge as having no greater probative value.

[17] A 5-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the

implication of confession by co-accused in the case of Haricharan Kurmi

v. State of Bihar: 1964 SCC OnLine SC 28 : AIR 1964 SC 1184

13. As we have already indicated, this question has been considered

on several occasions by judicial decisions and it has been consistently

held that a confession cannot be treated as evidence which is

substantive evidence against a co-accused person. In dealing with a

criminal case where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one

accused person against another accused person, the proper approach

to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused

person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the

court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge

framed against the said accused person, the court turns to the

confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is

inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. As was observed by

Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty [(1911)

ILR 38 Cal 559 at p. 588] a confession can only be used to “lend

assurance to other evidence against a co-accused”. In re Periyaswami

Moopan [(1913) ILR 54 Mad 75 at p. 77] Reilly. J., observed that the

provision of Section 30 goes not further than this:“where there is

evidence against the co-accused sufficient, if believed, to support his

conviction, then the kind of confession described in Section 30 may

be thrown into the scale as an additional reason for believing that

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 20 of 23

evidence”. In Bhuboni Sahu v. King [(1949) 76 IA 147 at p. 155] the

Privy Council has expressed the same view. Sir John Beaumont who

spoke for the Board, observed that “a confession of a co-accused is

obviously evidence of a very weak type. It does not indeed come

within the definition of “evidence” contained in Section 3 of the

Evidence Act. It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the

presence of the accused, and it cannot be tested by cross-

examination. It is a much weaker type of evidence than the evidence

of an approver, which is not subject to any of those infirmities. Section

30, however, provides that the court may take the confession into

consideration and thereby, no doubt, makes it evidence on which the

court may act; but the section does not say that the confession is to

amount to proof. Clearly there must be other evidence. The

confession is only one element in the consideration of all the facts

proved the case; it can be put into the scale and weighed with the

other evidence”. It would be noticed that as a result of the provisions

contained in Section 30, the confession has no doubt to be regarded

as amounting to evidence in a general way, because whatever is

considered by the court is evidence; circumstances which are

considered by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence

in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as

evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of Section

30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by Section 3 of

the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against

an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a

co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the

prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the

quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn

to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of

guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other

evidence. That, briefly stated, is the effect of the provisions contained

in Section 30. The same view has been expressed by this Court in

Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 1 SCC 275 :

(1952) SCR 526] where the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni

Sahu case [(1949) 76 IA 147 at p. 155] has been cited with approval.

[18] In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed

Mohammed Vakil Ansari: (2013) 12 SCC 17, it was held as below

19. The issue in hand can also be examined from another perspective,

though on the same reasoning. Ordinarily, as already noticed

hereinabove, a confessional statement is admissible only as against

an accused who has made it. There is only one exception to the

aforesaid rule, wherein it is permissible to use a confessional

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 21 of 23

statement, even against person(s) other than the one who had made

it. The aforesaid exception has been provided for in Section 30 of the

Evidence Act, which is being extracted hereunder:

“30.Consideration of proved confession affecting person making

it and others jointly under trial for same offence.—When more

persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence,

and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself

and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take

into consideration such confession as against such other person

as well as against the person who makes such confession.

20. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, the substantive

provision of Section 30 of the Evidence Act has clearly no applicability

because Sadiq Israr Shaikh, Arif Badruddin Shaikh and Ansar Ahmad

Badshah have not implicated any of the accused-respondents herein.

The importance of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, insofar as the

present controversy is concerned, emerges from Illustration (b)

thereunder, which substantiates to the hilt one of the conclusions

already drawn by us above. Illustration (b) leaves no room for any

doubt that unless the person who has made a confessional statement

is an accused in a case, the confessional statement made by him is

not relevant. None of the accused in Special Case No. 4 of 2009 is an

accused in Special Case No. 21 of 2006. As such, in terms of

Illustration (b) under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, we are of the

view that the confessional statement made by the accused in Special

Case No. 4 of 2009 cannot be proved as a confessional statement in

Special Case No. 21 of 2006. This conclusion has been recorded by

us on the admitted position that the accused in Special Case No. 4 of

2009 are different from the accused in Special Case No. 21 of 2006.

And further because, Special Case No. 4 of 2009 is not being jointly

tried with Special Case No. 21 of 2006. Therefore, even though

Section 30 is not strictly relevant, insofar as the present controversy

is concerned, yet the principle of admissibility, conclusively emerging

from Illustration (b) under Section 30 of the Evidence Act persuades

us to add the same to the underlying common thread that finds place

in the provisions of the Evidence Act, pertaining to

admissions/confessions. That, an admission/confession is admissible

only as against the person who has made it.

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 22 of 23

FINDINGS:

[19] On co-joint reading of the provisions of Section 30 of

Evidence Act with Illustrations (a) & (b), it will be apparent that the

confession of an accused may be considered against co-accused tried

together in a same trial and such confession shall not be used against any

other person who is not an accused along with the person making the

confession. This principle is well settled in the above cited decisions.

[20] On bare perusal of Illustrations (a) & (b) appended to

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is clear that the statement made

by an accused will not be applicable and cannot be considered by the Court

against the person, who is not a co-accused in the same trial. In the

present case, the owners of the vehicles were not accused along with the

drivers in the proceeding before the Ld. CJM, Thoubal in Cril. Misc. Case

no. 66 of 2016 [Ref: Cril. (Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2016]. Even if the

confession of the four drivers, who were accused before the Ld. CJM,

Thoubal, were recorded by RFO, Kakching and the same were not hit by

provision of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ranger being not a

Police officer within the meaning of Section 25), the same will not fall

within the ambit of the provision of Section 30 of Evidence Act so as to

bind the owners of the vehicles. Such confession cannot be considered

while disposing the applications of the owners of the vehicle for releasing

the vehicles, for the simple reasons that the owners were not co-accused

in the Cril. (Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2016 in terms of the provision of

Section 30 of the Evidence Act read with Illustrations (a) & (b). This Court

is of the view that Ld. CJM, Thoubal was wrong on relying the

statements/confessions of the four drivers while rejecting the applications

of the four owners of the vehicles for releasing the vehicles seized by the

Forest officer, keeping in mind that the owners of the vehicles are not co-

accused along with the drivers in the complaint case.

2026:MNHC:139-FB

Crl. Rev. P. Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2016 & MC(Crl. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 Page 23 of 23

[21] The initial onus of proving commission of forest offence is

on the prosecution and in absence of reverse presumption, such an onus

cannot be shifted to the accused at the first instance to deny such offence.

[22] In view of the above, the Cril. Rev. P. No. 17 of 2016, Cril.

Rev. P. No. 18 of 2016, Cril. Rev. P. No. 19 of 2016 & Cril. Rev. P. No. 20

of 2016 are dismissed being devoid of any merit.

[23] MC(Cril. Rev. P.) No. 8 of 2016 and pending applications, if

any, are disposed of accordingly. Parties are to bear their own cost.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Thoiba