:ia<!-. ^ SHCOURTOFCi lATTiSG IM nT r^.rs i-a.i. Petits Wrlt Petltton (Art.227) No.2400 of 2010 Parshuram Singh son of Shri Ram Kishun Gond, aged about 65 yesrs, resideni of viiiage Bhedlya, Poiice Station - Chandaura, Tah.Pratappur, Dlstrlct Surguja (C.G.) Respondents l/,versus 1. State of Chhattlsgarh, Through the Secretar^, Department of Forest, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhsvv'an, Raipur 'C.G.} Surguja, 3. Coilector, District Amblkapur (C.G.) Appeiiate Authority CoRserv'ator of Forest, Sarguja Forest Circle Amblkapur, Distt.Surguja (C.G.) 4. Competsnt Authority, Sub Divlstonai Officer (Forsst), Sub Division Fratappur, North Sargiija Forest Dlvision Sarguja, Dlstt.Sarguja sr^- *"t {^.\3.j C»v'ritPetition under Article 227 of the Constltution of India) Mr.N.K.C'naterjee, counse! forthe petitioner. Mr.vlRod Tskam, Panei Lawyerforths respondents/State. Hon'ble n4r. T.P. Sharma, J.) RDER (14-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Artioie 227 of fhe Constiiution of India ths >+i7ii \Qr f^^esri 3titioner has chailenged the iegality & proprlety of the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the 4th Additionai District judgs (F.T.C.), Ambikapur, in Crimina! Revision No.49/09, affirming ihe order dated 27.5.2009 passed by the appeiiate Court and competent authorlty i.e. Consen/ator of Forest, Forest Circte Surguja, Amblkapur in Forest Crime No.2461/11, Vi/hereby the competent authority has confiscated the tractor & troiley bearing Tractor No.M.P.27B/5863 & Troiiey 278/5864, owned by the present petitioner. NO.M.P.27B/58 ^ l^s. %. ]:;, ......tF^F'S:^ ^ liA"-f^1^'•S^'1'-1^ •!'; sfisiiij3»3^r N.S^ •^h •••^ 2. i have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the impugned order, copy of show-cause nottoe, copy of repiy and other documsnts. 3. As per order impugned and copies of other documents, the present petitioner is owner of the aforesaid tractor & troiiey which was caught red handed whiie transporting gitti. Show-cause nofice has been served upon the petitioner, in which If has been specificaiSy asked that your vehicie was invoived in the forest offence i.e. transportjng of gitSi from the forest range Pahadkarawa Kaksh Mo.P.F./185 (Mahuadand). By flSing i-epiy, ths present petitioner has denied the kn<wiedge of such commission of offence by his vehicie and has ciaimed that he was not having any Rnowledge of forest offencs by using his vehicle. After providing an opportunity of hearing So the psrties, the competent authority has passed ths order of confiscation oftractor & trolley. Sams wss chaiienged in revlsion before the appsilats Court and vide impugned order the appeiiats Court has affirmed ths order passed by the competent Court. 4. During the course of arguments, iearned counsel for the petitioner submits that svidence of Ramjit examined as defence wftness is material, in Which he himseif has specificajly deposed that there was no boundary iine bstween the forest land and revenue iand and drivei- was ioading gftti under bonafide mistake from the boundary of forest and revenue land, therefore, the forest offlcer has not proved the fact that aforssaid gitti has been transported or taksn out from ths forest iand and thersby committed forest offsnce. 5. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondents/State opposes She petition and submits that specific notice has bsen gh/en to the petitioner. By filing repiy, the present petitioner has not dispiAsd the. ^ fact that his vehicie was involved in the commission of Torest offence but has taken defsnce that he was not having knowtedge, but evidsnce and reply of the driver cieariy revsa! that st the instance of the present pstitioner he v/as moving and transporting gittl from the forest. This shaws direct involvement of the present appeitant in commission of offence and he is authorized agent. 3' 6. This fact is sufficient to estabissh the Tact that the petitioner 'nlmself v^as committing forest offence and his vehicie was invoived in comFnission of forest offsnce. By dismissing the reviston the Court below has •"ot committed sny Htegaiity 'A'arranting interference. Consequentiy, the writ petition being wlthout substanee Is liabie dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. i6 TO 06 Snterim appiicatson stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma , judge m.