^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION U/A 227 No. 2^-^^ / 2010 PETITIONER/: APPLICANT Smt. Abeda Bano W/o Yunus Meman , Aged about 36 Years, R/o 923/26 Ravi Nagar, Shukla Colony, Raipur, C.G., VERSUS RESPONDENTS/: PROSECUTION ^o 1^°^%^ ^sg^" j.» State of Chhattisgarh '' through ^cr. Forest Range officer, ^ Forest Department , Durg, Range District Durg, C.G. 2.Collector, Durg, District Durg, C.G. y>" ¥^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. -^' ^D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 2289 of2010 Petitioner Smt. Abeda Bano Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh &another WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra J.) Shri Imtiaz Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R. R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O R D ER (Orall (Passed on this 16th day ofNovember, 2010) The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 24th December, 2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 34/2008. The petitioner is owner of the vehicle - Tata 207-DI, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-G/8373, which was found involved in transporting 3 logs of teak wood, admeasuring 1.22 cubic meters in the morning of8.IO.2005 when the patrolling party was on duty on the rout i.e. village Anda to Utai forest range. After completion of the investigation POR No. 4884/17 was registered and after completion of the enquiry the matter was fonvarded to the prescribed authority. The proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle were drawn and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is the^case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the transportation of illicit forest produce in her vehicle by the driver and she had absolutely no knowledge or consent about the said transport and as such the order, confiscating the vehicle, is not sustainable. Before the prescribe authority the prosecution has examined Gokaran S/o Poonaram Chandrakar, K. L. Nishad, Ramkishun, Mansha Ram, Pardeshi Ram, Udho Ram, Gokaran S/o Kartik Sahu, Kaushal, Shyam Singh, Laxman, Anil Kumar, Ram, Chaitu, S. K. Albert, ^^^m^^ -^-.'f..' ' '\. ^ '; "c^^". \^ Dwarika Prasad, Onkar, Bhakti Ram, Gendu Ram and A. R. Naidu and their statements have been recorded. 4. The petitioner on the other hand examined Babulal, Alirtan Taitas, Girdhari Lal, Narayan Das, Suklal, Mohan Lal Soni, Malik Ram, Milan Kuniar and Mohd. Iliyas. After appreciation of the evidence the prescribed authority has found that the owner of the vehicle has failed to prove that she has taken all reasonable precautions to see that the vehicle was not involved in the transportation of illicit forest produce. The finding has been affirmed by the appellate authority of Conser^ator of Forest/Durg and the revisional authority of District and Sessions Judge, Durg. 5. ShriAli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that from the statement of witnesses and the observations made by the investigating officer, himself, by presenting the case before the prescribed authority, it would be apparent that the petitioner had no knowledge or consent about the transportation of the illicit forest produce and thus, the confiscation ofthe vehicle has been ordered on a finding contrary to the evidence on record. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would argue that the present petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein finding of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot be re-appreciated or disturbed. He would submit that while dealing with the matter of transport of illicit forest produce strict view may be taken. Thus, no scope for interference is available at the instance of the petitioner. 7. In the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan1, the Hon^ble Supreme Court has held that the provision regarding seizure and ' 2000(7) SCC 80 1 '"^^•-.. L^: confiscation of article involved in forest offence should be strictly complied with and followed for the purpose of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable for confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. 8. In the matter of State of W.B. Vs. Gopal Sarkar2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that order of confiscation would be justified if the authorized officer is satisfied about its use in commission of the offence. 9. Further, in the matter of State of West Bengal and another Vs. Mahua Sarkar3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle carrying illicit timber, the onus is on the owner of the vehicle to prove tp the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle was used in carrying timber without his or his agent's knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use had been taken and further that the owner has to prove this on the basis of sufficient material and not on the basis of mere assertion. In the said case the authorized officer had passed an order of confiscation and the District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the vehicle owner. The order was set-aside by the High Court by allowing the writ petition filed by the vehicle owner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, observred that the High Court erroneously allowed the writ petition filed by the vehicle owner without properly analyzing the position. 2 2002(1)8cc 495 32008(12)SCC763 R '^^p'"*^'" 10. In Khimji Vidhu Vs. Premier High School4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court may correct errors of jurisdiction and the like but not to upset pure findings of fact, which fall in the domain ofan appellate Court only. 11. It is well established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where pervrersity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 12. In the present case, from the order passed by the prescribed authority, it is to be seen that a finding has been recorded therewith that the authorized driver of the vehicle was Milan Sonkar arid Ishwar, however, at the relevant time one Malik Ram Sen was driving the vehicle and thus there appears to be serious doubt as to how the vehicle was handed over to a third person who was not the regular driver of the vehicle. The prescribed authority as well as the appellate and revisional authority has thus concluded that the petitioner has not been able to establish that she had taken all reasonable precaution to see that the illicit forest produce is not transported in her vehicle. 13. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 4 1999 (9)8.cc 264