, IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS?UR (CG) wRIT PETITxON No.223foF 2001 Anil Kumar Gupta, (son of Late R.N.Gupta, Aged about 45 years, resident of NaYapara Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.). VERS US RESPOND ENTS l) Authotised o£ficer and sub Divis ional Officer (Forest), chitrakote, Sub- Divisio‘n (General), Jagdalpur,‘ District- Bastar (chhattisgarh). ‘ The Appellate Authority and ConServator of Forest, Jagéa’lpur Region, District - Easter (chhattisgarh). The State cf chhattisgarh, Through : The collector Bastar District -' Easter (chhattisgarh). RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. , W \ Writ Petition No. 2235/2001 PETITIONER : Ani] Kumar Gupta M RESPONDENTS : Autharised Ollie Ofiicer (Forest), Aggearance: Shri R.N. }h Shri RR. Si Versus er and Sub Divisional Chitrakote and others M a, counsei for the petitioner. nha, Panel Lawyer for the State. W WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ORALORDBR ' (30.09.2010) The petitioner has called in question ihe geizure of his vehicle, Tata 407 bearing No. MP. 23/B—0781 vide Annexure I?» P~2, the Show cause notice to him for confiscation of the vehicle vide Annexure P-4, the order passed by authorized officer on 14/06/1999 Annexure P-16, the order passed by the conservator of forest in appeal on 22/04/2000 (Annexure P—l 8) and the orders passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, in criminal revision No.59/2000 (Annexure P-20). By the orders of the authorized l officers, appellate authorityand the revisional authority, the subject vehicle has been confiscated, as it was involved in illegal transportation of‘forest produce. (2) Thesubject vehicle originaliy belonging to one Ram Lal Gupta w was the registered owner of the vehicle. The suhject vehicle was intercepted by the employees of the forest depaltment at 4.30 am. (early morning) on 30/08/1997, when the vehicle was passing through Bodakot, Alnar, Mandar, Karkapal square, it was found that the vehicle was loaded with ‘Maida Chaal’, a forest produce without any valid document permitting transportation. The quantity of ‘Maida Chaal’ weighed 30.65 quintals filled in 63 gunni bags. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after submission of reply enquiry was held giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. (3) The prosecution examined the forest employees namely .Gajman Kashyap, RD. Patel, D.S. Korram, Santoshi Chaturvedi and Mosuram. Statement of petitioner Anil Gupta, Dinesh Singh, Tapan Dutta (Driver) and previous owner of the vehicle Ram Lal Soni were also recorded at the time of seizure as also before the prescribed authority. (4) After conclusion of the enquiry and the confiscation proceeding, the prescribed authority found that the owner of the vehicle has failed to prove that the illegal transportation was carried by the driver without his knowledge or consent or that he had taken 1 i reasonable and necessary precaution against use of the vehicle for t lcommission of the said forest offence. The order passed by the %rescribed i authority has been confirmed in appeal by the conservator l y?man“ J “u“. L54 of forest, Jagdalpur and by the revisiona] authority of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding recorded by the authorities are perverse and on correct appreciation of the material on record, it would be found that the vehicle was not involved in commission of forest offence. .(6) Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the prescribed authority as well as the appellate and revisional authorities have recorded concurrent finding about the involvement of the subject vehicle in the forest offence which cannot be unsettled in this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned State counsel has also produced the record. (7) Having gone through the documents filed in writ petition, the return of the State Government and the record of the case, it would appear that the vehicle was intercepted by the employees of the forest department and it was found to carry 63 bags = 30.65 quintal of ‘Maida Chaal’ which is a forest produce. All the employees of the forest department have supported the case of the prosecution, whereas the witnesses examined by the petitioner namely Ram Lal, Dinesh Singh and Tapan Dutta (driver of the vehicle) have tried to prove that the vehicle was not involved in carrying the forest produce. Driver Tapan Dutta has made a statement that 4-5 persons stopped the vehicle and have loaded the ‘Maida Chaal’ by intimidating him and that he was not carrying the forest produce. The other defence is about the lack of knowledge or consent of the owner ofthe vehicle in permitting illegal transportation of a forest produce. (8) In the matter of State ofKamataka Vs. K Krishmm reported in 2000 (7) SCC 80 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisioh regarding seizure and confiscation of article involved in forest offence should be strictly complied with and followed for the purpose of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable for confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likelyito frustrate the provisions ofthe Act. (9) In the matter of State of W. B. Vs. Ggpal Sarlcar reported in 2002(1) SCC 495 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that order 0f confiscation would be justified if the authorized officer is satisfied about its use in commission of the offence. (10) In the matter ofState of West Bengal and another Vs. 1V1alma Sarkar reported in 2003 (12) SCC 763 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle carrying illicit timber, the onus is on the owner of the vehicle to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle was used in carrying timber without his or his agent’s knowledge or connivance l and that all reasonable 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 1?} case the authorized offlcer had passed an order 0f confiscation and the District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the vehicle owner. The order was set-aside by the High Court by allowing the writ petition filed by the vehicle owner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, observed that the High Court erroneously allowed the writ petition filed _by the vehicle owner without properly analyzing the position. (11) ln the matter of Khimji Vidhu Ks. Premier High School reported in 1999 (9) SCC.264 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of it's power and jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India the High Court may correct errors of jurisdiction and the like but not to upset pure findings of fact, which fall in the domain of an appellate Court only. (12) In the present case the prescribed authority, on appreciation of the evidence on record has found that the vehicle was carrying forest produce without any valid permit. It was also found that the petitioner/owner of the vehicle has not proved that the vehicle was used for transportation of forest produce Without his knowledge or connivance and that he had taken reasonable and necessary precaution against use of the vehicle for commission of forest offence. The finding has been confirmed by the appellate and revisional court. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner for the use of the vehicle for forest offence. Such finding of ,g, fact cannot be interfered by this court in exercise 0f its axtra ordinary writ jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. (13) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though he had purchased the vehicle and it was recorded in his name, the actual physical possession of the vehicle was with Ram Lal Gupta and thus he had no knowledge about the transportation of forest produce. This argument of the petitioner rather than supporting him demolishes his own case in as much as when he was the recorded owner of the vehicle, but was not in physical possession, he could not have been in a position to prove that‘he had taken reasonable and necessary precaution against use of the vehicle for commission of forest offence. ‘ (l4) In View of the above, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (l 5) There shall be no order as to cost. /’