THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2282 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.35 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Warangal. 2. The brief facts are, the petitioners/forest officials seized Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.AP20X 2082, on 19.8.2008 while teak round logs were allegedly being transported in it and registered a crime in P.O.R. No.827/34 against four persons A.1 to A.4. The respondent herein is A.4, who is owner of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the first petitioner passed order dated 17.12.2008 confiscating the offending vehicle to the State. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, who passed the impugned order setting aside the order of the first petitioner. Challenging the same, the present revision has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that notices have been served on the respondent, who is owner of the offending vehicle, and so the burden is on him to establish that without his knowledge and connivance the offending vehicle was transporting teak round logs illegally; that the respondent has not produced any material to show that without his knowledge, teak logs were being transported in the offending vehicle, and that there is no violation of principles of natural justice, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that no show cause notice as required under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 is served on the respondent, and in the absence of any service of the notice, question of establishing his case does not arise, and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference. 5. One of the principles of natural justice is that no man should be condemned unheard. This principle is built in Section 44 (2-B) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, according to which, before confiscating any vehicle or contraband, notice, in writing, should be given to the affected party calling for his explanation and also to produce necessary evidence to substantiate his case. So, after service of such notice only, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners comes into play. No doubt, the burden is on the person who contends that without his knowledge, the contraband was being transported in the offending vehicle, in view of the decision reported Forest Range Officer, Sanipaya Range v. V.Kamala Kannan & another[1] wherein it is held thus: “It is open to the owner of a vehicle or receptacle used in a forest offence to prove that the offence took place without his knowledge and despite his due care and caution. If such facts are proved, the vehicle or receptacle cannot be subjected to confiscation. One important aspect of the matter, however, is that the burden to plead and prove absence of knowledge of the offence squarely rests upon the owner of such vehicle or receptacle. It is no part of the duty, much less the obligation of the Forest Department, to prove that the owner had the knowledge of the offence.” Unless notice is served, question of placing the burden on the owner of the offending vehicle does not arise. 6. As seen from the order of confiscation dated 17.12.2008 of the first petitioner-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Warangal (North), Warangal District, it would clearly go to show that the Forest Range Officer tried to serve notice on A.1 to A.4, but they were not residing in the addresses mentioned, and so, a notification was published in Eenadu telugu daily news paper, and thereafter he passed the order of confiscation. If the owner is evading to receive show cause notice, then the officials concerned can issue a paper publication. In any case, unless the show-cause notice for confiscation of the vehicle involved in the alleged illegal transport of forest produce is served on the owner, the question of producing any evidence by him does not arise. Therefore, the appellate court rightly set aside the order of the first petitioner. 7. But, at the same time, interests of the Forest Department as well as the interests of the owner have to be safeguarded. So, a notice published in news paper can be said to be a notice because the respondent knows about the show-cause notice. Hence, the first respondent is directed to file his explanation to the show-cause notice within a period of six weeks from today and establish his case before the petitioners. After considering the explanation, the petitioners shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 4.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2282 of 2010 4.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2282 of 2010 4.3.2011 Between: The Authorised Officer and Assistant Conservator of Forests, Warangal (North), Warangal District. …Petitioner And Miryala Ravi Prasad …Respondent [1] 2007 (5) ALD 494