IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No.7§£$ /2oo7 (V servative officer Bilaspur Circle Bilaspur (C.G.) (9’ \7Qq‘ \\ «9km PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE \ (3’ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER Kusheshwar Rai, S/o Shri Ram Bhajan C AP‘?\{€:Q\A.‘E§§ Rai, aged about 56 years, R/o Gewra Basti, Kusmunda, Post- Kusmunda, ’\r .............. dist. Korba (C.G.) %<O?> . ......... ye (A QW~QB ry_\\, ......... 9i ..... VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh, through Appellate authority and forest con— mGH CODRT OF CHHATT§§MH AT £ILASPUR ’ . . Simle Bench: gm'ble smi Jug'gg Prggnam KM, Mi§hra _m. Wiit Mitiomgi N0, 7m l3”? ‘ PETIT‘ONER Kwheshwar Rai Versug RESPONDENT The State 0f Chmmsgafh l Shri Parag Kotecha, counse! foi the petitioner. ° ‘ Shri Rajesh Ranjan Sinha, Pane! Lawyer for the Siam/respondent, I' ‘ WRIT PETIHOM UNDER ARTICLELZI OF THE cONSTiTUTmN OF“ . ORDER ( 3o mam) In this petition under Atticte 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has caiied in question the oider of confiscation of truck No. ~ C.G.12/Z.C.l()199 passed by the prescribed authorityLSDD, Forest, _ V Korba (North) on 29-08-2006 (Annemre PI2), eppeiiate orderpaeee¢by~ Conservator oi Forwt, Biiaspur, Circle — Biiaepur on 24-07—2007' L; (Annexure PI3) and the revisionai order passed by theSessionsJudge, ~ auaspur on 31 -1o2007 (Annexure PM); (2) The facts of the case in short are that at about 12.30 am. (midnight) on 28—01 —20Q6 the subject truck was intercepted for checking in the Batco Gem-Lenin: forest road when it was traveling from Aigarbahar to Korba. Thetruek was found carrying 45 numbers of sat, 3 saja and other varieties of wooden toga. POR No.024515 dated 29-01— 2006 was registered and the matter was submitted before the prescribed authority on 07-02-2006 for initiating confiscation proceedings. fgy‘f’tf 'i (3) The prescribed authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner; ‘ V (i it was stated by him in his repiy that driver Nawai Singh and Kuien§ingh ~ g wag 5% ai3. $35 Em 858 £313 w»¢=,wéma a3 Abv . aggnymwwwmmanaga , 92a owmzw§3 3.2 v ? wazwav 2a m2¢vA wmaw oa§,.m.>r. / "/\ -B,‘ authority are abso‘uteiy perverse and contrary to the evidence'on remrd. it was strenuous‘y urgw that on appreciation of evidence and upon ‘ correct reading of the statement oi the driver of'thetruck it is home out , that the petitioner had no oonsent or knowledge of the ‘iilegai transportation of wooden logs made by the driver and thus the‘order of " _ connecation deserves to be quashed. (6) Per contra, ieemed counsel appearing for the respondent-State wouid argue that the preseribed authority as well as the appeilate and ‘ revisionai authorities have recorded concurrent findings of the faots against the petitioner, which cannot he unsettied in this petition under ‘ a Arttcte 22? of the Conetitution of indie. Supporting” the‘order‘ of confiscation, teamed oounsei for the respondent, has fuither arguedthat ' the tweet offence is proved and no interferenoe is caiied for. (7) Section 52 of the Forest Act, 1927 (henceforth ‘the Act')"provides that when there is reason to heiieve that a forest offence has been committed in respect of a vehiote, it may he eeize the vehicie which shat! be iiabie for oonftecation. Sub section (5) of Section 52 provides that no order of confiscation shaii be made if the person having interest in the property proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle was uaed without his knowledge or connivance or, as the case ‘ may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servants or agent ~ and that ali reasonahte and necessary precautions had been taken ' against use of objects for commission of forest offence. l\ (8) in the matter of State of Kamataka Vs. K. Krishnan reportedin 2000 m scc 80 the Hon’bie Supreme Court has held that the provision k uf .-1_' ,. regarding seizure and confiscation of articb invoived in forest offence shou‘d be striotly oompiied with and fouowed for the purpose of aohieving the object for vmich the Act was enacted. Liberat approach in the matter with respect to the property seized. which is tiabie for confiscation; ie " uncaited for as the eame is tikeiy to frustrate the provisions of the Act.“ - (9) tn the matter of State of W. B. Vs. GopafSarkar reported in 2002(1} scc 495 the Hon’bte Supreme Court has hetd that order of oonfmation woutd be justified if the authorized offieer is satisfied'about'its use in commission of the offence. (i O) tn the matter of State of West Bengal and another Vs. Manna Sarkar reported in 2008 (12) SCC 163 the Hon‘bte Supreme Court has held that in proceedings for oonfiscation of the vehicte Carrying itticit timber, the onus is on the owner of the vehiete to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicte was used in carrying timber ~ without his or his agent’s knowtedge or connivance and“ that alt reasonabte 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 atlowing the writ petition filed by the vehicle owner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, \ t_ observed that the High Court erroneously allowed the writ petition filed by a i/fthe vehicle owner without properly analyzing the position. \ / n 1999 9 scc 264 the Hon’ble Supreme Court ha t {) s of its power and 3unsdmtton under Article 227 of the Constituti t CtmycorreG ‘ he Highoura onl. y m timber w‘thout ms mme ‘o’r connwance and that he hm take ' f the vehlcl$ fo nst the pehhoner about use o‘ the vehlcle for forest offenoe Su 393! mdia. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge m m n - o r ch