PTITIONER/ ADDlicant lc^. \/ THE HON'Bl.E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. fClNO. flff^ /2.010 Smt. Geeta R-ai W/o Manmohan Yadav, aged about 46 years, R/o Village Darripara Nagar, P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPODNENTS/ , ^__ ..^^_..: "^ 1: State of Chhattisgarh Non-applMnts -ri.._.._L. r.l'._^ ^___.^ Through forest Ranger, Forest Circle, Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ^p..--" AJ'^'''^%1-''''' ^ 2' prescribed Authority & Joint Forest ';..f;S',^\6..- Divisional Officer, Sub-Forest Fivision Ambikapur (C.G.) ^3. Appellate Authbrity cum conservator of forest, Sarguja Forest Circle Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) (C.G.) 4. SessionSl!J^.g< Sarguja, Afti^ikapur ^^^—^••^'- ^^ : .. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA tii! • —^^^^s^ ^ 53> HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justfce Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (Cl No. 1411 12013 PETSTiONER RESPONDENTS Versus Smt. Geeta Rai Stete of Chhaffisgarti and ottiers. Shri D.N. Prajapati, counset for the petititmer. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondente No. 1 to 3. WRiT PETiTiON UNDER ART1CLE 2ZQ1227 OF THE CONSTiTUTiCTi OF IMD1A ORALORDER <08.11.2010) The matter is haard finaily with the ccmsent of teamed counsei for the parttes. (2) The petitioner has ralled in question fte concurreni oideis passed by She Prescribed Authority, the App&llate Authority and fie Revisionat ^rihority directing confiscation <rf the 'Max Piek Up' vehicte bearing Registratton No. CG/15-A/-W80 b^onging tottie petttioner. (3) The facts of ttie case in short is Uiat white patrolling on 22 February, 2008 tiie concemed Police seized ttie subject vehicle, which vas found to carry 37 pieces of teak hand sawn admeasuring 0.539 cubic meSers which was transported without any valid pemiit. Shri Kedar Sai, driver oi the vehicie could not produce any document authorizing transportatton of the forest produce. The concemed Poiice infonned the Forest Officw upon wrtitoh the Range Officer, Ambikapur registered forest offence Case No. 15978/02. After fesuing Show Cause Notice and seeking repiy from fte peiitioner the evidence of Shri S.B. Pandey, Range Officer, Shri Shashilant Singh, Shri Safeh Bahadur Singh, Shri S.C. Shukla and Shri CHnesh Ram ^sia .s^ ,^.'!.a^: ^ \ j ~%^ cvvy ~ 2- was recorded on behatf of prosecutfon. The petiUonei' e^mmed hersstf in support of the defence that she never authorized the driver to transport ie iiikat forwt produce and that the dmer wss transporting the forest produce without her knovtrtedge or consent. (4) The Prescribeci Authority m ite ddaiied order Annexure P/2 dated 12-03-2009 recorded ths finding ttiat the petitioner has faiied to prove that she has teken reasonabte precaution and that the vehreie was not invohred in any forest offence. The Prescribed Authority also considered the fact that when the vehicte was intereepted by ttie Poitee, instead of stopping the vehicle the driver increased the speed and tried to flee fr<mi the piace. (5) The dsder passed by tha Prescribed Authority has bean confirmed by the Appellate Aufcority of Conservator of For^t and Rsvisfonal AuUrority of the Sessions Judge, ttius thers are concuirent finding by ati the Authorities on the question as to srtiether the petifener had taken reasonabie precaution to see thal vehicte is not inv<rfved in forest offence. (6) in ttie matter of State af W.B. Vs. Gopal Sarisar reported in 2QG2{1) S£%; 495 the Hon'bte Supreme Court has heM that order of corifiscatfon would be justffied if the authorized officer is satisfied about ils use in commission ofthe offence. (7) !n the matter of State of West Bengaf and another Vs. fSsdaia Sarifar reported in 2( (12) ^C 763 the Hon'bte Supreme Court has hdd ttrat in proceedings for conferation of the vehicte canying itBat timber, the onus is on the owner of the vshicte to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that ttie vehicle was used in canying fimber wittiout his or his agent's knowiedge w connivanc& and that ati reasonabie and necessary $"? ''^. 'k^ll 3 precaution against such use had been taken and further that the owner has to prove this on the basis of sufficient materiat and not on the bssis of mere assertion. in ths said case the auttiorized officer had passed an order of confiscation and the District Judge dismissed Vna appeaf preferred by ttie vehicie owner. The order was set-aside by the High Court by atlowing the writ petition fiisd by the vehicfe owner. The Hon'bie Suprsme Court, white aihwnng the appeai, observed that the High Court erroneousiy aliowed the writ petition fiied by ftie vehicie owner without properiy anaiyzing the posifion. (8) tn the matter of Khimji VHihu Vs. Premier High School repofted in 1999 (9) SCC 264 the Hon'bte Supreme Court tas hekl that in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under iWicie 227 ofihe ConstituBon of india the High Court may correct errors of jurisdiction and the iike but mA to ups^ pure findings offact, which faii in ttie domam of an appeliate Court oniy. (9) in view of iaw Said down by the Hon'bie Supreme Court Uiis Court fe unabie to acc^jt ttie argurnent raised by the ieamed counse) for ttie petifener that the finding recorded by the Authorities wtiile ordering confiscation ofvdiicte is peroeise. (10) There ts no materiat on the record of the writ petifion to conclude that the autiiorifies have not considered the evidence in ite true psrspective or that any materiai ewdence has been ignored while recording ttie finding. (11) In the r®uit,the instent writ petition faits and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge •1<-