The Gauhati High Court has held that administrative confiscation of a vehicle under Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, cannot remain in force indefinitely when criminal proceedings remain pending for over seven years without completion. The judgment reinforces that prolonged detention of property without judicial outcome violates the accused’s right to speedy investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Faijul Hoque, is the registered owner of a truck bearing registration No. AS-17B-9317, which was seized by forest authorities on 12.08.2018 near Lailapur on NH-54. The vehicle was found transporting teak logs that exhibited discrepancies in quantity, length, girth, and lacked proper markings. The forest officials suspected a violation of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, and initiated proceedings under Section 49 for seizure and potential confiscation.
Key Facts
The truck was intercepted on 12.08.2018 during patrol by Lailapur Beat forest personnel.
The logs were found to be unmarked and inconsistent with the transit pass presented.
The vehicle was brought to Dholai Range HQ and formally seized.
A notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.01.2020, requiring him to prove the legality of the forest produce within 30 days.
The Authorized Officer, Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Cachar, passed an order of confiscation on 17.01.2020 under Section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891.
The confiscation order included both the teak logs and the truck.
The petitioner appealed the confiscation order before the Additional District Judge, Cachar, which was dismissed on 07.03.2022.
A criminal revision petition was filed before the Gauhati High Court (Crl.Pet. No. 173 of 2022), dismissed on 30.08.2022.
The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP(Crl.) No. 5347/2023) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 07.11.2023.
Despite these judicial outcomes, the criminal investigation into the alleged forest offence (OR No. DH/6 of 2018-19, DVL/65 of 2019-20) remained incomplete.
The petitioner submitted representations on 28.06.2024 and 25.06.2025 seeking information on the status of the investigation and requesting withdrawal under Government Notifications dated 21.10.2022 and 20.09.2024.
No response was received to either representation.
The petitioner invoked Section 528 BNSS to seek quashing of the proceedings and release of the vehicle.
Procedural History
12.08.2018: Truck intercepted and seized by forest officials.
17.01.2020: Confiscation order issued by DFO, Cachar under Section 49(4).
07.03.2022: Appeal dismissed by Additional District Judge, Cachar.
30.08.2022: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed by Gauhati High Court.
07.11.2023: SLP dismissed by Supreme Court.
28.06.2024: First representation to DFO seeking investigation status.
25.06.2025: Second representation seeking withdrawal under Govt. Notifications.
27.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Gauhati High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that:
The confiscation under Section 49 is a temporary measure pending outcome of criminal proceedings.
The investigation has remained pending for over seven years without any charge sheet or final report.
The delay violates the right to speedy investigation under Article 21.
Similar cases have been withdrawn under Government Notifications dated 21.10.2022 and 20.09.2024.
A comparable case (Crl.Pet. No. 572/2025) resulted in release of the vehicle after withdrawal.
For the Respondent
The Forest Department, represented by the Standing Counsel, submitted:
The confiscation order under Section 49 has attained finality through appellate and revisional proceedings.
Section 49 and Section 51 are independent mechanisms; confiscation under Section 49 does not depend on criminal conviction.
No affidavit was filed, and no explanation was provided for the delay in investigation.
Reliance was placed on decisions from Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh where parallel confiscation was upheld.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Quashing of the pending criminal proceedings (OR No. DH/6 of 2018-19, DVL/65 of 2019-20).
Immediate release of the truck bearing registration No. AS-17B-9317.
Direction to the DFO, Cachar, to complete formalities for return of the vehicle.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 permits indefinite retention of a vehicle pending criminal investigation, and whether prolonged delay in completing such investigation - without any charge sheet or conviction - violates the accused’s fundamental right to speedy investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on three coordinate judgments of the Gauhati High Court - Jogeshwar Borah v. State of Assam (2006), Jaminur Rahman v. State of Assam (2016), and Sambhu Saha v. State of Assam (2005) - which held that confiscation under Section 49 is a temporary measure, not final. The Court had consistently ruled that only a conviction under Section 51 can lead to permanent confiscation. The petitioner further cited Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025 LiveLaw SC 1128), where the Supreme Court held that undue delay in investigation is a ground for quashing proceedings under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, as it infringes Article 21. He also pointed to the Government of Assam’s 2022 and 2024 notifications permitting withdrawal of petty forest offences punishable by up to three years, which explicitly exclude only serious offences like POCSO, NDPS, and corruption. The instant case, involving transport of unmarked logs, fell squarely within the scope of withdrawable offences. The petitioner highlighted the Gauhati HC’s own decision in Gaurav Pandey v. State of Assam (Crl.Pet. No. 572/2025), where a similar vehicle was released after withdrawal of proceedings.
For the Respondent
The Forest Department argued that Section 49 confers an independent administrative power of confiscation, distinct from Section 51, and that once the order is upheld by appellate and revisional courts, it becomes final. It cited Deep Kumar v. State of Assam (2022 SCC OnLine Gau 1248) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai (2017) to argue that parallel proceedings under forest laws and criminal courts are permissible. However, the Department failed to file any affidavit or provide reasons for the seven-year delay in investigation. It did not dispute the applicability of the 2022/2024 withdrawal notifications or the factual similarity with Gaurav Pandey. The counsel’s reliance on decisions from other states was deemed inapplicable, as the Gauhati HC’s own binding precedents clearly defined the temporary nature of Section 49 confiscation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Sections 49 and 51 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. It observed that while Section 49 empowers forest officers to seize property suspected of being involved in a forest offence, the term "confiscation" used therein is a misnomer. The Court emphasized that Section 49 provides for a preliminary, provisional stage, whereas Section 51 is the only provision that authorizes final confiscation upon conviction by a criminal court.
"The confiscation of property ordered by the Authorized Officer under Section 49 must be understood to be confiscation under Section 49 and the same has been held to be a temporary stage."
The Court reaffirmed its own binding precedents in Jogeshwar Borah, Jaminur Rahman, and Sambhu Saha, which collectively establish that administrative confiscation under Section 49 cannot be treated as final. The Court noted that the State had not filed any affidavit to justify the seven-year delay in completing the investigation, nor had it produced any charge sheet or final report.
The Court then turned to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu, which held that undue delay in investigation is a violation of Article 21 and may justify quashing of proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. The Court observed:
"If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing."
The Court further noted that the Government of Assam’s 2022 and 2024 notifications explicitly permit withdrawal of forest offences punishable by up to three years, and the present case - concerning unmarked teak logs - falls within this category. The Department did not dispute the applicability of these notifications or the factual parallel with Gaurav Pandey, where the Court had directed release of a similar vehicle after withdrawal.
The Court concluded that the continued retention of the vehicle for over seven years, without any judicial outcome, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The fact that appellate and revisional courts had upheld the confiscation order did not alter its temporary character under the law. The Court held that the administrative order, though legally final in procedural terms, could not override the constitutional imperative of speedy justice.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Gauhati High Court quashed the pending criminal proceedings under OR No. DH/6 of 2018-19, DVL/65 of 2019-20. The Court directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, to release the truck bearing registration No. AS-17B-9317 to the petitioner upon verification and completion of routine formalities. The order was to be complied with within four weeks from the date of judgment. The Court also awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioner against the State.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Confiscation Is Not Permanent
Practitioners must argue that any confiscation under Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation is provisional and cannot be used to indefinitely deprive an owner of property.
Even if appellate courts uphold the confiscation order, the underlying nature remains temporary pending criminal outcome.
A final confiscation can only follow conviction under Section 51.
Delay in Investigation Triggers Article 21 Remedies
Seven years without a charge sheet constitutes undue delay under Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu.
Petitioners may invoke Section 528 BNSS to seek quashing of investigations that lack progress, especially in minor forest offences.
Authorities must now provide written reasons for delays exceeding two years.
Withdrawal Notifications Are Binding on Forest Authorities
Government notifications permitting withdrawal of petty forest offences (punishable by up to 3 years) are operational and must be applied uniformly.
Forest officials cannot ignore such notifications merely because a confiscation order exists.
Where similar cases have been withdrawn, non-application to identical facts amounts to arbitrariness and violates Article 14.
Always check whether the offence falls under the scope of state withdrawal notifications.
File applications under Section 528 BNSS if investigation exceeds 3 years without charge sheet.
Cite Jogeshwar Borah and Sambhu Saha to challenge indefinite retention of seized property.
