Article 226 does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent jurisdictional error or perversity.

On 12 January 2024, police intercepted and seized a Hyva carrying sand, along with a JCB and a Scorpio, following information about alleged illegal excavation and transportation from the restricted Sathani Ghat area of the Banas River.

A forest offence was subsequently registered, and the Authorized Officer confiscated the Hyva and sand on 30 December 2024.

The petitioner’s appeal and criminal revision were dismissed on 11 June 2025 and 12 December 2025, respectively.

The petitioner challenged the revision order under Article 226, relying, among other things, on a valid Transit Pass, witness testimony, delay in forest proceedings, a release recommendation by the Range Assistant, and release of the JCB.

1. Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the confiscation orders affirmed through the statutory appeal and revision, notwithstanding Section 52-B(5) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

2. Whether the asserted Transit Pass, evidentiary deficiencies, delay in preparation of forest documents, and release of the JCB established grounds to set aside the confiscation of the Hyva.

Article 226 permits review where a decision is affected by, among other things, a jurisdictional error, denial of natural justice, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or perversity; it does not ordinarily permit fresh appreciation of evidence merely because another view may be possible.

Under the Madhya Pradesh statutory scheme in Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, forest produce and vehicles involved in forest offences may be seized and confiscated, with an appeal and revision provided and finality attached to the Sessions Court’s order under Section 52-B(5).

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 154, was relied upon for the operation of that statutory scheme.

The petitioner had pursued the statutory proceedings, and the record disclosed neither denial of notice or hearing nor a patent jurisdictional error.

The objections concerning witness testimony, the Transit Pass, the delay, and the Range Assistant’s recommendation were matters considered in the statutory proceedings; the Court found no indication that relevant material had been wholly ignored and declined to reweigh the evidence under Article 226.

A Transit Pass permitting transport did not, by itself, authorize excavation or removal from a prohibited area, and the authorities had concurrently found the sand connected with the restricted area.

The delay in preparing forest documents was not shown to invalidate the proceedings, and the JCB’s release did not require the Hyva’s release because each vehicle’s connection to the offence depended on its own evidence.

The confiscation order dated 30 December 2024, the appellate order dated 11 June 2025, and the revisional order dated 12 December 2025 were left undisturbed.