BISWABAHAN DAS versus GOPEN CHANDRA HAZARIKA & ORS.

BISWABAHAN DAS versus GOPEN CHANDRA HAZARIKA & ORS.

Payment of compensation for compounding a forest offence under Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, s. 62 does not amount to an acquittal nor does it clear the character of the person; therefore, the Board of Revenue was entitled to consider such conduct in determining suitability for grant of excise licence. The High Court erred in holding otherwise and quashing the Board's order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: Biswabahan Das; Respondent: Gopen Chandra Hazarika
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 September 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 208 of 1964 Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Outcome
Appeal allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Board of Revenue is restored.
Legal Topics
Effect of Compounding Forest Offence, Scope of Writ Jurisdiction (certiorari), Consideration of Suitability in Excise Licence Settlement
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law Effect of Compounding Forest Offence Scope of Writ Jurisdiction (certiorari) Consideration of Suitability in Excise Licence Settlement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biswabahan Das

Appellant

Gopen Chandra Hazarika

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 208 of 1964 Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compounding a forest offence under Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 is equivalent to acquittal under s. 345(6) Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in considering prior compensation for a forest offence when determining suitability for excise shop settlement.
  3. 3 Whether writ of certiorari was correctly issued by the High Court quashing the Board’s order.

Ratio Decidendi

Payment of compensation for compounding a forest offence under Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, s. 62 does not amount to an acquittal nor does it clear the character of the person; therefore, the Board of Revenue was entitled to consider such conduct in determining suitability for grant of excise licence. The High Court erred in holding otherwise and quashing the Board's order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Board of Revenue is restored.

Orders

  • The order of the High Court is set aside.
  • The order of the Board of Revenue is restored.