•»&- k<l-T¥: "^:'3f-- ,(; .0 ^ '< TI? 'rHE^aGH COVBS OS ^tSQBI.CiSVSE «£_Bn,&SyB.(,C.G.} IT PETION NQ.' ' "OE^.ajfiJ, BETWEEN •Sat: Radlia Devi Chouhan,' iddow of H.' S." Cbouhan residenfc of;Salj.^>ara,! .BhaiTcpr^;^>pur,E Bi^strict- Kanker(C. G.)':S ^ ' . _ , , ' _ , :• pfiPITIpX.iS ./ y-i.. •s 3. iA^ ^l^v; 5@ A -W-Y /"^•4 ''J^-^ The State ofGhhata.sgarh'fchKiagh'theSecretary ".^ Sbrest D^) artinenfc MantEale^,l D. K»: Bail<aing,'ISstpurg 1 IIie Revii^eaaal' ABcfcboxAty-curo-adal.Session t-iadge,' .^ Kanker,' (C.'GS).. - .; ' , . ;^-. . ' ' ^ : Ihe ^yp&Llafee -$at:nQi33Ltsc-cuH}-epnservafcor o f Ibrest, • Ibresfc Qi-vision;3. KankerB .District - KankerCc.'S;);. : ',i T-he ConTjgtent Sa'thority-eura-Bivision.aI R>rest . O fficerC C^eraO ,''•Sab-Qlvisiein;; BhgRi.pr^s^ipnr, MsfcFic't-K'ankertC.G.^-,'- . ! - . • 1'heBangeO££i.cer,a.a:t:heO/0nivisiGia.al Barest „• .0 ffieerC Qeheral}',' Bli.am^.E'afc^pQ.r," Qist.tt KaHKer«?Asg^ ^-ir/ ..ASSOMBElfflS TOIT,JE'@3:TIO»:_UEIBER AB3a:GI,E.226 ••WSt'ZZ^vQS'MSEl GONSE'ISICTIQM OF INSEA. ft. "^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No.1396 of 2001 PETITIONER Smt. Radha Devi Chouhan. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. ORDER For Pronouncemeut of Order 14.12.2011 :^Sd/-', N.K.AgrawaI Judge rf'.'!, % ^igs, ;M '•:""»>a- "JJ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Writ Petition No. 1296 of 2001 Smt. Radha Devi Chouhan. RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'Me Mr. N.K. AgarwaLJ.) Present : Shri Vishnu Kosta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. G.D.Vaswani, G.A. for fhe State/Respondents ORDER (Deliveredon \(^ .12.2011) Petitioner - Smt. Radha Devi Chounan is the owner of truck bering registration No.M.P.23 D/2160, after death of her husband M.S.Chouhan. The ta-uck in question was seized by the forest authority on 27.05.2000 on the ground that the said vehicle was engaged in illegal transportation of 20 pieces of teakwood sleepers. On account of above seizure, forest offence Np. 6923/04 dated 27.5.2000 was registered. Proceedings of the confiscation of £he said vehicle were drawn under Section 52 (3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended vide M.P. Amendment Act, (1983). 2. Authorised Officer / S.D.0. Bhanupratappur Forest Sub- Division issued show-cause notice to the petidoner. No explanation in terms of Section 15 (6) ofthe M.P. / C.G. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhniyam, 1969 or in terms of Section 52 (3) 1 ^iffe- t ;,'y .',' ./'.'• ^.....^i'' of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was offered by the petitioner. However, after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, fhe petitioner's evidence was also recorded. The petitioner examined herself on 07.07.2000. As per her statement, she sent her driver to bring dry-grass but driver, at his own, illegally transported teakwood sleepers without her knowledge or connivance. Although the driver informed her about the above incident of seizure of the vehicle but he has not uttered a single word regarding illegal transportation of teakwood sleepers and she only came to know about the above fact during her statement. 3. The authorised Officer, on due consideration of the entire material available before hina, passed fhe order of confiscafion of the track on 14.08.2000 (Annexure P/l). The peUtioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2000 (Annexure P/3). Criininal Revision No. 130/2000 preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker vide order dated 16<h May, 2001. 4. The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 16.05.2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 130/2000 by respondent No.2, i.e., Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker. 5. Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.submitted, the driver of the petitioner transported above teakwood sleepers without petitioner's knowledge or eonnivance. \ The petitioner has specifically stated in her statement that the above illegal transportation of teakwood by her driver was without her knowledge or connivance. The driver himself admitted, he transporfed the above teakwood for his own use, and therefore, all fhe authorities below have committed a manifest error in holding, the petitioner failed to prove to the satisfaction of authorised officer that the forest offence coramitted by her driver was without her knowledge or connivance and the findings are perverse, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and the vehicle in question is not liable for confiscation under Section 52 (3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 6. On the other hand, Shri G.D.Vaswani, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents/State contended, before seizure of the vehicle, the same was taken by the driver to the residence of the petitioner. At that time, the truck was filled with cow-dung. The petitioner did not ask her driver why it was filled with cow-dung in place of dry-grass. After meeting the petitioner, the driver went from Bhanupratappur to Kanker. On way to Kanker, the truck was caught red handed on the ground that it was transporting 20 pieces of teakwood sleepers covered wifh cow-dung. The driver hinaself admitted, 20 teakwood sleepers were kept in the bushes, which were loaded by him in the truck. Show-cause notice was not replied for a period of one and half month and only in her statement, the petitioner has stated, she was unaware about commission of alleged offence by her driver and in the above state of evidence and facts, the authorities below li ii •^ have not coramitted any error in con&scating the vehicle in question. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record of Writ Petition. 8. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 provides for seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefor. Sub- section (5) of Section 52 provides that no order of conGscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any ofher article (other than timber or forest-produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorized ofGcer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or, as the case may be, without fhe knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of objects aforesaid for commission of forest-offence. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. She was required to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle was used without her knowledge or connivance or, as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of her servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against the use of the truck for commission of forest-offence, as envisaged under sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the Indian Porest Act, 1927. 10. So far as knowledge or connivance of her servant, i.e. driver of the vehicle is concemed, is not in dispute. Facts recorded by respondent No.3, the appellate authority, in its order dated 27.10.2000 and by revisional authority, in its grder dated 16.05.2001 reveal, fhe driver before seizure of the truck went to the petitioner's house and met her and at that time the truck was filled with cow-dung. When she sent the said truck to bring dry- grass, why she did not ask any question to her driver regarding cow-dung filled in the truck in place of dry-grass. Further, the truck started at 4.00 a.m. from her hou.se for Kanker and was seized with 20 pieces of teakwoodsleepers. Driver intiniated her about such seizure but she did not ask her driver why truck was seized. No explanation was offered by her to the authorised officer for a period of one and half month and only in her statement, she has stated that she sent the truck driver to bring dry-grass but driver, at his own, has brought 20 pieces of teakwood sleepers. The explanation offered by the petitioner after a period of one and half month, i.e. after conimission of above forest-offence, was not plausible. The authorities below, having found the above explanation unsatisfactory, have rightly held, the petitioner failed to prove to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that the said truck was used in the cominission of forest-offence without her knowledge or connivance. 11. The judgment of this Court in the case of Sukhdeo Singh Bachchu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2011 (1) CG.L.R.W. 466, relied upon by the petitioner's counsel is of no ]||iin-ii 'ljl' li,-•'.;.. i X ff—-^% help to hira inasmuch as in that case, the leamed Single Judge has found that the petitioner has established that the vehicles involved in the alleged comaiission of forest-offence were used without knowledge or connivance of the petitioner and also that the petitioner has taken reasonable and necessary precautions against use of said truck for commission of forest-offence. 12. Considering every aspect of the matter, in my opinion, the authorities below have rightly reached to a conclusion that petitioner failed to prove, the said truck was used in the coinmission of forest-offence without her knowledge or connivance and that she has taken reasonable and necessary precautions against use of said truck for commission of forest-offence. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any illegality, perversity or absurdity in the order impugned warrandng interference of this Court in exercise ofjurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constita-ttion of India. Petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. •"-.Sd^-., '::1 'M.K.'Ag»'awal Judge _