THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8852 of 2002 Date: 13.02.2008 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by The Forest Range Officer, Birsaipet, Jannaram, Adilabad district. … Petitioner AND Rayees Bin Saleh … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: A.G.P. for Forest Counsel for respondents: Sri A.M.Qureshi HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8852 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 5.3.2002 passed in C.M.A.No.20 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The facts in brief are a jeep bearing registration No.AP 9M 4371 was seized alongwith 30 teak pieces and planks admeasuring 0.249 cubic meters valued at Rs.5,981/- on 01.9.2001 by the Forest Range Officer, Birsaipet. A case was registered as P.O.R.No.1/66, dated 09.8.2001. The seized contraband was found without any transmit marks and permit. Proceedings under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. In response to the notice, the respondent submitted his reply wherein he mentioned that in the early hours of 09.08.2001, three persons, by name, Ganesh, Tajammul and Musadiq, who are residents of Danthanpally and Utnoor respectively, went to the residence of the respondent and told him that Ganesh’s mother was in serious condition and they requested him to spare his jeep to take her to Nirmal for admitting in a hospital for treatment. The respondent further stated that at first instance, he refused to give his vehicle, but thereafter, he handed over the jeep to Musadiq to take Ganesh’s mother to Nirmal for treatment. He pleaded that he has neither any knowledge nor connived in the commission of the forest offence and, therefore, the vehicle is not liable for confiscation in view of the provisions of Section 44 (2-C) of the Act. After holding enquiry, the Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Management, Jannaram passed order on 16.10.2001 whereby he directed confiscation of the vehicle to the State alongwith the seized timber. The said order was questioned by the respondent in C.M.A.No.20 of 2001, which was allowed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad by his order dated 05.3.2002. Questioning this order the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest for the petitioner and Sri A.M.Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Under Section 44(2-C) of the Act a vehicle, tool, rope, chain, boat etc., is not liable for confiscation if the owner thereof is able to prove that the property was used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent if any, or the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle etc., in committing the offence and that each of them has taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The authorized officer in his order gave a finding that the respondent has not proved that he has taken due precautions against commission of forest offence and that when he was himself the driver of the vehicle there was no necessity for him to handover the same to some other person for taking a patient for treatment from Utnoor to Nirmal. He also observed that Nirmal does not have better medical provisions than Utnoor has and that the very fact that the petitioner has not give any police complaint against the persons who allegedly misused his vehicle not only shows that he had knowledge of the commission of the offence but he had indirectly helped in the commission of forest offence. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge purporting to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Conservator of Forest & Others Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale[1] reversed the order of the authorized officer. He held that it is sufficient if the owner proves that at the time when the jeep was entrusted to his agent or driver he has complied with all legal formalities for transportation of the jeep and entrusted the transportation to the agent or driver by taking all reasonable precautions and that once such steps have been taken by the owner his responsibility and liability ceases. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Chennur Vs. Vijay B.Gulati & Others[2] and argued that the respondent has taken all the precautions to prevent misuse of the vehicle and that since there is no material on record to show that he had knowledge of commission of offence, the vehicle cannot be seized. I have carefully considered the above mentioned two judgments and I am of the view that on the facts of this case the said two judgments are not of any help to the respondents. In support of his contention that the said three persons approached him in the early hours on 9.8.2001, he has not examined any person. The fact that he was himself a driver is not disputed and that except his ipse dixit that he was tired having plied the vehicle during the day-time and unable to drive the vehicle to Nirmal, the respondent did not adduce evidence of any person to support his case. Of all the three persons who approached him, Tajammul worked as a cleaner with the respondent. The fact that the vehicle was misused in the commission of forest offence is not in dispute. Tajammul is thus necessarily involved in the offence. Since, he worked as cleaner under the respondent he would have known the nature of the said person. In spite of that he lent his vehicle to such a person. Moreover even after coming to know about the misuse of the vehicle, the respondent has not initiated any criminal action against them. From this circumstance, the authorised officer had presumed that the respondent indirectly helped in the commission of the offence. In my considered view the authorized officer is justified in drawing such a presumption because if the respondent is innocent and had no knowledge, he would not have refrained from giving a police complaint to take criminal action against those who deceived him by misusing the vehicle. Failure of respondent to give such a complaint militates against the natural human conduct. This conduct of the respondent shows his complicity and connivance in the commission of forest offence. Even assuming that the respondent had no knowledge, in my considered opinion he failed to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that he has taken all reasonable precautions against the misuse of the vehicle. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad failed to keep in view the true purport of the provisions of Section 44 (2-C) of the Act in interfering with the order passed by the authorized officer. For the above-mentioned reasons, order dated 05.03.2002 passed in C.M.A.No.20 of 2001 is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:13.02.2008 mdaa [1] 1998 (1) ALD (Criminal) 258 [2] 1998(1) ALD 117 (FB)