THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19423 of 2000 Date: 06.02.2008 Between: The Forest Range Officer, Addateegala, East Godavari. … Petitioner AND Danedi Vijaya Bhaskara Rao And others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: A.G.P. for Forest Counsel for respondents: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19423 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 10.7.2000 passed in F.A.No.1 of 1998 by the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry whereby he set aside order dated 28.7.1998 passed by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Rampachodavaram confiscating Ambassador car bearing No.AP 5T 4539 with six colour stones valuing Rs.50,000/- under Section 44(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”). The car bearing No.AP 5T 4539 belonging to respondent No.1 was intercepted by Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Rajahmundry and his party and it was found that the driver of the car was in possession of six semi-precious colour stones of 3.5 gms. The Divisional Forest Officer seized the car and six stones and recorded the statement of the driver. The seized colour stones and car were produced before the authorized officer i.e., Sub-divisional Forest Officer, Rampachodavaram. After conducting preliminary enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents under Section 44(2-A) of the Act to show cause why colour stones alongwith car should not be confiscated to the Government. Respondent No.1 appeared and pleaded before the Sub- Divisional Forest Officer, Rampachodavaram that he has no knowledge or connivance in the commission of the alleged forest offence. The authorized officer passed order dated 28.7.1998 whereby he confiscated the car and the colour stones by exercising power under Section 44(2-A) of the Act. Respondent No.1 questioned the said order before the learned District Judge, East Godavari by way of appeal registered as F.A.No.1 of 1998. The said appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge by his order dated 10.6.2000. The order of the Sub- Divisional Forest Officer and the learned District Judge are assailed in the present writ petition. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest. None appeared for the respondents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the learned District Judge committed error in directing release of the vehicle under Section 44 (2-C) of the Act though there was no material on record to show that respondent No.1 had no knowledge or connivance in the commission of offence and that he had taken all necessary precautions to prevent commission of such offence. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and gone through the record. The allegation on which the colour stones alongwith car were seized was that six colour stones were seized from the driver of the vehicle. 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 learned District Judge relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court The Forest Range Officer, Madanapalle Vs. Pritam Singh and Another[1] wherein the provisions of Section 44(2-C) of the Act were interpreted by holding that the words “without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of the agent if any, or the person in charge of the vehicle” shall be read disjunctively and that absence of knowledge of any one of them is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 44(2-C) of the Act. The learned District Judge also relied upon the Full Bench Judge of this Court in Government of A.P., Vs. Dinde Kanakamma and Another[2] wherein it was held that the discretion vested with the authorized officer under the Act has to be exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner. The learned District Judge also reasoned that for the act of the Driver, viz., in his written trip from Dutcherti, he halted at Mamidipalem and collected stones, no knowledge or connivance of the owner can be presumed. Having carefully considered this reasoning of the learned District Judge, I am of the considered view that the same does not suffer from any error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24620 of 2000 filed by the petitioner seeking interim suspension is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:06.02.2008 mdaa [1] 1990 (1) ALT 156 (DB) [2] 1998 (5) ALD 436