THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.2302 OF 2003 Date:08.08.2011 Between: The Forest Range Officer, Raikal Range, Jagtial, Karimnagar District and another .. Appellants And Palem Yada Goud and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.2302 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.04.2003 in W.P.No.17724 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellate authority-cum-the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in C.M.A.No.26 of 2001 dated 29.11.2001 confirming the order of confiscation under Section 44(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for brevity, the Act) directed to confiscate the lorry of the first respondent. On 07.01.2001, the Inspector of Police, Metpally, stopped the lorry bearing No.APJ-2690, while transporting teak timber, without any permit or authorization. The lorry driver and six others were arrested. On receiving the information, the first appellant took charge of the lorry and conducted enquiry. On receiving the report, the second appellant issued a show cause notice dated 15.01.2001 to the first respondent and others asking why the lorry should not be confiscated. The first respondent submitted explanation pleading ignorance and denying the knowledge of his vehicle being used for illegally transporting teak timber. The second appellant recorded a clear finding that the smuggling of teak was masterminded by Kanagarthi Gangadhar and Surrapu Ganesh with the help of two others, but rejecting the plea of ignorance and ordered the seizure of the lorry under Section 44(2-A) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the first respondent filed C.M.A.No.26 of 2001 under Section 44(2-E) of the Act. By an order dated 29.11.2001, the learned III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Jagtial, dated 13.06.2001, aggrieved by which, the first respondent filed W.P.No.17724 of 2002. The Government Pleader for Forests submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in interfering with the concurrent finding of the fact and that the conditionalities for confiscation of the lorry under Section 44(2-A) of the Act are present in the case. Section 44 of the Act deals with the seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure thereupon. Section 44(2-A) empowers the authorized officer to order confiscation of the timber or forest produce seized together with vehicles used in committing of an offence. Before doing so, the forest officer is required under Section 44(2-B) to issue a notice in writing to the person from whom the vehicle is seized informing the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the property and also afford an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The power to confiscate, however, is not available if the owner of the vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle was used in carrying the property without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent. The scope of Section 44(2-A) read with Section 44(2-C) of the Act was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Chennur v. Vijay B.Gulati[1]. The Full Bench laid down that unless it is shown that the owner of the vehicle shared the culpability of the agent or the servant, or that the agent or the servant indulged in culpable acts with the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, the order of confiscation cannot be passed under Section 44(2-A) of the Act. We have perused the order of the second appellate Court who records a finding that the illegal transportation of teak timber was masterminded by three persons and not by the first respondent. The learned District Judge, Karimnagar, has not recorded any finding with regard to connivance or knowledge of the first respondent. In the absence of such a finding, any confiscation would be contrary to Section 44(2-C) of the Act. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 08.08.2011 KH [1] 1998 (1) ALD 117 (FB)