Administrative confiscation of vehicles is temporary and subject to criminal acquittal or undue investigative delay.

On August 12, 2018, forest officials intercepted a truck (NL-01-K-5990) carrying teak logs from Mizoram. Discrepancies in the transit pass led to the seizure of the vehicle

On January 17, 2020, the Authorized Officer (DFO, Cachar) ordered the administrative confiscation of the vehicle under Section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891

The petitioner’s appeals were dismissed by the District Court, the High Court in revision, and the Supreme Court via SLP

Seven years after the initial seizure, the criminal investigation into the forest offence (OR No. DH/5 of 2018-19) remained incomplete with no charge-sheet filed

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings and release of the vehicle under Section 528 BNSS (formerly 482 CrPC), citing undue delay and government notifications regarding the withdrawal of petty cases

Section 49(4) allows for administrative confiscation by Forest Officers, while Section 51 empowers a convicting Court to order final confiscation upon conviction

The Court relied on Jaminur Rahman v. State of Assam and Sambhu Saha v. State of Assam, which established that confiscation under Section 49 is a "temporary stage" or "misnomer" that awaits the finality of a Section 51 order by a judicial magistrate

The Court further applied the principle from Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar, holding that the right to a speedy investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and that undue delay without justification is a ground for quashing under Section 528 BNSS

The Court determined that while the administrative confiscation order had attained legal finality through the appellate process, it remained "temporary" in the context of the overall Regulation framework

Because final appropriation to the State under Section 51 requires a criminal conviction, the status of the vehicle is tethered to the criminal proceeding

The Court found the seven-year delay in completing the investigation "unduly long" and noted the State failed to provide any justification for the non-completion

Furthermore, the Court observed that forest offences of this nature are not excluded by the State's own notifications (dated 21.10.2022) regarding the withdrawal of minor cases to reduce pendency

By applying the logic of Robert Lalchungnunga, the Court concluded that the prejudice caused to the owner by long-term deprivation of property outweighed the State's interest in an indefinitely stalled investigation.

It held that a seven-year delay in investigation violates Article 21

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings (OR No. DH/5 of 2018-19 DVL/64 of 2019-20) and directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, to release the truck (NL-01-K-5990) to the petitioner after verification of formalities