k Va; h, IN K‘EE {EGGRT OF 3'; _}_CAT€§RE Psi? BIUIE§§G§j§§HAWESQx£§R§E WE}? FETXTEQE N0, w 6 66 £20m; ¥ w' U§§I}/}Z€AK§CLE 22'? OF TEE $G§$TET§§TEQE§ OF EEEQ’EE o" - Amit Jain, ah: Chgmka Kama? Jgam, aggd 39 warm acaupatian Tank awnar, ri a Lakhmxmr, Emaigt $m‘gmia a ‘Chhattiagarh i v 3QESFO?‘§EE?€ ' 3Siat¢ 9f {ihhamagarm fhrrmgh. Dhriis'ianai Figregt wear, Léikhanpur, Bigiriat {éargaga {C.{3.} L? u #iggmxgangjamm W , ,w / , T3, . / X HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1468/2003 PETITIONER Amit Jain Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh SB:- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT :— Shri N.L. Soni, Advocats, for petitioner. Shri G.D. Wasvani, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State. o RAL ORD ER (14—1—2011) 1. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 21—3—2003 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Criminal Revision No. 182/2000. 2. Facts of the case in brief as mentioned in the impugned order are that on 10-7-1997, when the petitioner was at Raipur, his father who resides separately transported Sal wood from village Dipadih (Shankargarh) to Ambikapur in the night on his minitruck without his consent and knowledge. On 12-7—1997 the petitioner returned t0 Lakhanpur and found that the truck was not in his residence. He was informed that his minitruck has been confiscated for the offence of transporting forest produce illegally. When he went to Ambikapur he was informed that his father who went to Kusami Shankargarh for purchase of Mahua, was stopped while he was returning by 10—11 persons at about 11.00 in the night and they forcibly transported Saal wood on the truck to Ambikapur and because of fear his father could not inform others on way. On 2nd day, they took the wood to a mill and on refusal by the mill owner, the above persons fled and thereafter, father of the petitioner took the truck to Forest Depot along with wood and thereafter the forest authorities seized the wood and confiscated the truck. The authorized officer /Sub—divisional Officer, ‘ Forest Ambikapur directed confiscation of truck of the petitioner bearing registration No. 27—B/ 1296. Thereagainst, ti'ie petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was also dismissed on 5—7—2000. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a revision which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Learned courts below concurrently disbelieved the case put forth by the petitioner that father of the petitioner/driver Chandra Kumar Jain was taken forcibly to load the unauthorized Saal wood on the ground that he failed to prove the above contention raised. Shri N.L. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the father of the petitioner/driver himself went to the forest depot along with the wood. Had there been any intention to commit such crime, he would not have gone to forest depot along with the wood. Therefore, learned court below has committed illegality in confiscating the truck. 5. On the other hand, Shri Wasvani, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/ State would contend, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order was passed which was affirmed by all the authorities including the revisional authority. The above finding is finding of fact. There is no perversity, illegality or absurdity in the above finding. The petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision contained in sub- section 5 of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act (briefly ‘the Act’) which are applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh which reads thus:— “52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation.- (5) No order of confiscation under sub—section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, Chains or any other article (other than the timber or forest produce seized shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, Without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precaution had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission.” The above provision gives opportunity of hearing to the person referred to in clause (b) of sub—section (4) of Section 52 and also puts a burden on him to prove his innocence by adducing evidence and placing cogent material in this regard. Now reverting to the facts of the present case, all the authorities including the revisional authorities found that the petitioner has failed to discharge his burden to prove his innocence despite giving full opportunity of hearing. The submission made by Shri Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, is also devoid of merit inasmuch as EX. P—l i.e. the F.I.R., was prepared by the petitioner’s father on 11—7—1997 but the same was kept with him for two days and it was submitted before police authorities only on l3- 7—1997. No explanation has been placed by the petitioner why the above report was kept by the petitioner’s father for two days. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the factual finding recorded by the . courts below is perverse or based on no reasons or illegal warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India. )b It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain it'self from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. ll. Therefore, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4‘ Sd/-‘ N.K.Agrawal , r L Judge