Long Delay in Completing Forest Offence Investigations Violates Article 21 and Warrants Quashing of Proceedings.

The petitioner’s truck (AS-17B-9317) was seized on 12.08.2018 by forest officials on suspicion of transporting illegal teak logs

The vehicle was subsequently confiscated by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) Cachar on 17.01.2020 under Section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891

This administrative confiscation was upheld by the Additional District Judge, the High Court in revision, and the Supreme Court in an SLP dismissed on 07.11.2023

Seven years after the seizure, the criminal investigation into the forest offence (OR No. DH/6 of 2018-19) remained incomplete with no final report/charge-sheet filed

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceeding and release of the vehicle invoking Section 528 BNSS

The court primarily interpreted Sections 49 and 51 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. Section 49 provides for administrative seizure and "temporary" confiscation of property involved in forest offences

Section 51 mandates that final confiscation of property can only be ordered by a convicting court upon the establishment of guilt

The court relied on the precedent in Jogeshwar Borah v. State of Assam (2006) and Jaminur Rahman v. State of Assam (2016), which established that Section 49 confiscation is a temporary measure awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings

The court further applied the principle from Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025), holding that the right to a speedy investigation is a facet of Article 21 and undue delay is a ground for quashing under Section 528 BNSS

The court reasoned that although the administrative confiscation order had attained "legal finality" through the appellate process, it remained temporary in nature under the scheme of the Regulation

Permanent forfeiture (appropriation to the State) is contingent upon a conviction under Section 51; without a trial and conviction, the property cannot be indefinitely retained

The court noted that the state failed to provide any justification for the seven-year delay in investigation

Applying the Robert Lalchungnunga doctrine, the court found the delay "unduly long" and prejudicial to the petitioner’s rights

The court observed that the State’s own notifications (dated 21.10.2022 and 20.09.2024) regarding the withdrawal of petty cases did not exclude forest offences, and similar cases had already been withdrawn by the State

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings (OR No. DH/6 of 2018-19)

It directed the Authorized Officer/DFO, Cachar Division, to release the vehicle (AS-17B-9317) to the petitioner upon verification and completion of usual formalities

The petition was allowed