fitHH-PU ^^^^^(ST^^^o ^ ^^ ~ATO XURE^.£.-.:^.. K.< :qT3Tciq : ^ ^ITqTtftgt, g7g5]T§3iTa$Tg7^{-^T^I 'ms : ^ wwo^y^ STtRTTOcp gHYl-^7 £•"12^000^ ff? T7T T?*-D5-02'2000 ;"• ,1. ?• BK'f ^. actriTg^tf^,»T-.teTg^^, 'r^qTa'l JIT^q" ^iyjET,?mr-^gT, toT ?tqT^^T?j, 7T^I^1TT 3?RTci OT> flT;ITTqfl ajRTcl, ftqT^ :F1T TT^r^T^,' ^riT H7g"lTSiltei-0^, vt' ggg iaTit 3T- s5q^ SgT^, TwTrft- /HTi! 3'^ct,yT;tT-;^eqT,'NciT ^qTST8ST7|, . • • • • • • gT^dT^f^TysiT^CTq : jrTa :- ^-y-mw -STU. , ^ ^TTTyp aTtSin-Tt, OT w ^vsfm'iwf'ft, l niiTgui^^T^Tjii'q'-a, . • • 1 •JTa7qT^/3F[T^^s ^T^sS UTTcI^T Sv^ tfTH- 52JQ1 5ff7;ft3 ^ jlTuTinq 3TTEIOT?af:TO STTT Sct n- •?;1-T?R-T^T,3iTEa^lT 3'?c17gTS,cr ST'?T Sft ^q.^-^mrft, cit'$ aTm^si? 1 e^^- Lv^ ^ ^°^"'SS!^SSS^Sy^^S89^SS"['i if r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BIIASPUR Writ Petition No.5047 of 2000 PETITIOMER Tajuddm. RBSPONDENT8 VBRSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) 85 others Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on ) | /05/2011. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge il.i 1 ::^; M;i»%< '^ L^ •~.f Sitf ^^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitipn No. 5047 of 2000 PBTITIONBR RBSPONDBHTS : Tajuddln VERSUS : The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INIMA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AfiRrwal, J.) Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMBNT (DeUvered on j ( .05.2011) 1. Instant petition, ffled under Articte 227 of the Constltution of India, calls in question the legality and propnety of orders dated 28.12.99, passed by the SDO, Forest, Ramanujganj, dated 03.02.2000, passed by the appellate authority i.e. Conservator of Forestand order dated 29.06.2000, passed by fhe Sessions Judge, Surguja in Criminal Revision No. 12/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are: petitioner/T^uddin is (he owner of the Truck bearing registratlon No. BR-15-G-7886. His truck was seized by the forest aufhorities on 04.02.1999 on the ground that fhe said truck was engaged in illegal transportation of 175 bags of loath buckles i.e. forest produce without any valid transit pass. On accoimt of above 11 "-d— SK- •..f- SS KK VS,; !a«'»uE^r.^SS; SW •^ ^ -^ss^v '^^' - "2£^^" 4. seizure, forest oflFence No. 4572/03 dated 04.02.1999 was registered under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short the Acfj and proceedings of confiscation of the sald truck was drawn under Section 52 (3) offhe said Act. 3, The Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Ramanujganj, i.e. authorized ofilcer, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for confiscation of sald Truck on 24.03.1999. The petitioner, by filing his reply on 29.03.1999 denied the allegations leveled upon htm in the show cause notice. 22 witnesses were exainined including defence witness^s. "\-~. As per statement of mvest^attng officer Laxman Sharma, petitioner was neither involved m fhe aiegal transportation of loafh buckles nor the saiae was transported wifh his knowledge or connivance. The authorized ofiicer, although found prosecution failed to prove forest produce seized fi~om the house of Ramjanam was transported by truck tn question; but having found quantily of forest produce seized along wifh truck was not fhe same as mentioned tn the transit pass, held driver of the vehicle tn connivance of good's owner changed the goods loaded m the truck at the time of checking at barrier arid loaded with another lot of Nagar Motha and Amla, quantity of whlch was not fhe same as mentioned in fhe transit pass, directed for confiscation of truck vide order dated 28.12.99 U i; """^i (Annexure P/3). The above order was afBroied by the appeUate authority as well as by the revisional auftiority vide fheir orders dated 03.02.2000 and 29.06.2000 respectivety. Hence fhis petition. 6. This court, vide its order dated 07.11.01 directed to release fhe vehicle in petitioner's favoiir on petitioner's fumlshlng bank guarantee of Rs. 5 Lakhs, but according to counsel for the petitioner, the petitloner could not fumish the bank guarantee, therefore, possession of the vehicle in question is with the respondent aufhority. 7. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner would submit: the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the vehlcle was involved ta UIegal transportation of forest produce; loath buckles was not seized along with truck, fhe same was seized from the house of Ramjanam who himsetf has stated that he is the owner of above forest produce; mvestigating OflBcer Laxman Sharma himself certtfled innocence of the petitioner, in view of above, alfhough the petitioner has proved his mnocence i.e. his non involvement in the alleged forest ofience, the orders impugned are wifhout jiuisdiction and deserve to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Shri GD Waswani, leamed Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State supported the orders impugned, and would submit authorized officer has passed the order of conflscation after considering fhe entire evidence avaUable on record. Appellate authority as weU as •;^'^35^-^ !ii;l'ITT°t^. BS': ': '"Jiga-.l . •8*5?*% S "'•s i'r Sessions Court have afBrmed the above orders and there is no iUegality, perversity or absiirdity m the orders and the saine deserye to be upfaeld. 9. I have heard ttie leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records offhe petition. 10. Section 52 of the Act provides for seizure of property liable to cortfiscation and procediire fherefor. Sub Section (5) of Section 52 provides that no order of confiscation under sub section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article (otfaer fhan timber or forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub section (4) proves to be satisfaction of authorized officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chalns or other articles were used wlfhout his knowledge or connivance or, as the case may be without the knowledge or coimlvance of his servant or agent and that all re^onable and necessary precautions had been taken agamst use ofobjects aforesaid for cominission of forest offence. 11. The petitioner was owner offbe vehicle. He was required to prove to the satisfaction of the authonzed oliicer fhat the vehicle in question was not used for Blegal transportation of forest produce and no such forest produce was transported with his knowledge or connivance and he had taken all ^a,i r" Jl n/ / reasonable and necessary precautions agalnst the use of vehicle for commission of said forest ofience. 12. Admittedly, forest produce i.e. Loafh Buckles was not seized eifher from. fhe truck or from the custody of owner or driver of fhe vehicle. The same was seized Irbin the house of Ranyanam who has deposed that he is the owner ofthe said forest produce and the same does not belong to petitioner or Rakesh Agrawal. Petitioner himself deposed that after perusal of transit pass he handed over the vehlcle to Rakesh Kumar for transportation of forest produce strictly tn accordance with titie ta-ansit pass. 13. Investigating Officer Laxman Sharma himsetf deposed alleged transportation of loafh buckles was without knowledge or connivance of the petitioner. 14. Authorized ofBcer, ignoring the statement of investigattng officer Laxman Shanna, and the fact that merely because at the time of seizure of truck the quantity of Nagar Mofha and Amla was found less fhan mentioned in the transit pass is no ground to say that vehicle was u-ivolved in cominission of said ofience or aUeged commission offorest offence was with the knowledge and connlvance ofthe petitioner or his driver, has passed the order of confiscation, which, m the facts and clrcumstances ofthe case, is not sustainable in law. uy IR •t -s." Bl 'ilB! Sahu lr. 15. For fhe reasons mentioned hereinabove, fhe writ petition is allowed. Orders Impugned dated 28.12.99, passed by the SDO, Forest, Ramanujganj, dated 03.02.2000, passed by the appellate authority i.e. Conservatorof Forest and order dated 29.06.2000 are hereby quashed. Since the vehicle is in possession of the respondent authority, the respondent authority is directed to deliver its possession to the petitioner. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge •<.: ^ffSI^Vft^W^^^SKS a,:.