HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Ch) N023 of 2007 Vijay Kumar ‘Gupta, S/o Beni Madhav Gupta, Aged about 36 years, Rlo Village Rajouti, P.S. & Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the PETlTlONER: Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The AppeHate Authority/Conservator of Forest, Surguja, Forest Circle, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3. The Competent Authority/Sub-Divisionai Officer (Forest), Dhaurpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Presentf Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava with Mr. Manoj Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (5-9-201 1) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 27—12— 2006 passed .by the Sessions Judge, Surguja in Criminal Revision No.234/2006, whereby learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision tiled on behalf of the petitioner herein under Section 52-B of the Indian ForestAct, 1927 (for short ‘the Act’) filed against the appellate authority under the Act. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other documents. 3. As per brief facts of the case, the petitioner herein, owner of the Max x1 Pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.CG-15/A—3213, was found 2 BE involved in forest offence on 17-3—2005 and teak wood was Ioaded in the aforesaid vehic!e. Forest offence has been registered and notice has been issued to the petitioner for confiscation of the vehicle used in forest offence. The petitioner has filed reply before the Forest Officer and has specifically taken defence that the vehicle was given on hire tov one Shakeel Khan on 17—3—2005 for transportation of boxes, almirah, rozai & gadda from 17-3-2005 at 6 p.m. to 18-3-2005Vat 8 a.m. but Shakeel Khan has committed aforesaid offence. By ming reply, the petitioner herein has also taken defence, especially in para 5 of his reply (Annexure P—6), that he came to know about the fact of commission offence on 19-3-2005 through newspaper, then he searched for Shakeel Khan, handed over Shakeel Khan to the police and lodged report against Shakeel Khan. Shakeel Khan has admitted his guilt before the police of Sitapur. The petitioner has taken defence that the vehicle was used without his knowledge and consent, therefore, the vehicle owned by him is not liable for confiscation. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the competent authority has passed the order of confiscation, same was affirmed by the appellate court and also by the revisional court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to confiscate a vehicle, the forest authorities were under obligation to arrive at a finding that the vehicle was being used for commission of forest offence with the knowledge of owner of the vehicle or his agent or that the owner of the vehicle was silent relating to such knowledge. ln the present case, the forest authority has not enquired into the matter and has passed order without any material. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Prakash Rai v. State of M.P. and two others1 in which the M.P. High Court (Indore Bench) has held that the competent authority was under obligation to consider the report of the inVestigating officer that owner of the dumper had no knowledge that the dumper was being used to commit the forest offence. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Assistant Forest Conservator and others v. Sharad Ramchandra Kalez in which the Supreme Court has held that for confiscation of a vehicle the forest authorities are required to arrive at finding that the owner of the vehicle had any knowledge that his vehicle was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the / 1 2006(4) M.P.H.T. 295 '\ 2AIR1998 sc 2927 V l x provisions of the Forest Act. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of State of M.P. v. Ram Gopal Sharma3 in which the M.P. High Court has held that if owner proves ignorance of commission of forest offence, the vehicle cannot be confiscated. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that owner of the vehicle and his agent were having knowledge that the vehicle may be used for commission of offence. The forest authorities and the Court below have not committed any illegality. 6. As per specific defence taken by the petitioner herein, the vehicle in question was given on hire to one Shakeel Khan by receipt dated 17—3— ‘ 2005 and the forest officer examined two persons, the alleged witnesses of the receipt, and also the petitioner. As per para 5 of the reply med on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner has handed over Shakeel Khan to Sitapur police and Shakeel Khan has admitted the guilt. Para 5 of the reply of the petitioner reads as follows: — 13%W $Wamaté$mm mam 19.03.2oo5aamasmhawaa mmammmmitdwggémmmasf mmatwqwmqdam$mifm€tm mammatdmmwmmml 313W awawfabwmmatmmahvmtéw wmwfmmmml 7. Definitely, admission of such guilt before the police is not admissible in evidence or the aforesaid confession cannot be considered in judicial proceeding. 8. As per defence of the petitioner, Shakeel Khan has executed one receipt relating to hiring of vehicle, and the petitioner has produced Shakeel Khan before the police station. Shakeel Khan was the substantial witness relating to such receipt and to unfold the story that whether he has taken the vehicle for transportation of house hold articles or for transportation of forest produce. Shakeel Khan was not absconding, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner has not examined Shakeel Khan to prove his only and substantive defence raised on the alleged receipt. Even the petitioner has not handed over Shakeel Khan to such competent authority. 3 1991(1) MPWN (66) 4 @ 9. Definitely, as held by-the M.P. High Court in Ram Gopal’s case (supra), vehicle cannot be confiscated if the owner of the vehicle proves the fact that he was not having any knowledge of such commission of offence by using his vehicle in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the Act. 10.However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, in the present case, the petitioner has not examined his substantiai and star witness Shakeel Khan. ln absence of such evidence, while passing the order of confiscation and dismissing the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Court below has not committed any illegality requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sc‘i/-' T.P. Sharmav Judge Soma