IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (227) No. (in mg / 2010 §§§§§ig ggEwm‘E : (gatyendra Singh PETITIONER S/o Late Sita Ram Singh, Aged about 45 years R/o Vill. Boriguma Distt. Koraput—(Orissa) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Prescribed Authority Cum D.F.O. Chitrakote, Forest Division Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) The Conservator of Forest Cum Appellate Authority Jagdalpur Region, Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar— (C.G.) The First Addl. Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar—(C.G.) C‘TA ”(X HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) N0. 6406/2010 PETITIONER Satyendra Singh Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri Prafull Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri‘ Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the ' State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (9.1 1.201 0) Heard. (2) The petitioner is owner of Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. O.R.-10/D-2040. The said jeep was found to transport 32 Nos. of hand sawn teak at about 11 pm on 11/10/2008 when the vehicle was stopped/intercepted at the barrier by the employees of the forest department. POR No. 15780/14 was registered and show cause notice was issued. At the end of the enquiry prescribed authority orderered for confiscation of the vehicle which has been aEirmed by the appellate order of Conservator of Forest, Bastar Circle and the revisional authority of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar. i—1 (3) Shri Bharat, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that ‘on the face. of finding recorded by the prescribed authority that the petitioner’s son who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time was cheated by two suangers who requested him to transport the teak wood on the statement that they possess valid permit which they have forgotten in the house and that if something happens during transportation they shall take care of. It is’ submitted that the prescribed authority has also recorded a finding that the petitioner had no knowledge or consent about the illegal transportation. Thus, the prescribed authority as well as appellate and revisional authority should have accepted the explanation and no order for confiscation should have been passed. (4) Shri Ajay Dwivedi, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for State on advance notice would argue that in order to prove innocence and no involvement in the forest offence the owner or his agent (son) is required not only to prove his lack of knowledge- or consent, but is also required to prove that all reasonable precaution was taken to see that the vehicle is not involved in any forest offence. He would also submit that the present is a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India in which the concurrent hnding of guilt recorded by three subordinate authorities cannot be disturbed. (5) In the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. K Krishnan reported in 2000 (7) SCC 80 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provision regarding seizure and corihscation 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. i l l f3? AO Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable for conpscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. (6) In the matter of State of W. B. Vs. Gopal Sarkar reported in 2002(1) SCC 495 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that order of confiscation would be justified if the authorized ofticer is satisfied about its use in commission of the offence. (7) In the matter of State of West Bengal and another Vs. Mahua Sarkar reported in 2008 (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 odicer that the vehicle was used in carrying timber without his or his agent’s knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use had been taken and fixrther that the owner has to prove this on the basis of suhicient material and not on the basis of mere assertion. In the said case the authorized oErcer 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 allowing the writ petition filed by the vehicle owner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, While allowing the appeal, observed that the High Court erroneously I allowed the writ petition filed by the vehicle owner without properly analyzing theposition. l r m (8) In the matter of Khimji Vldhu Vs. Premier High School . reported in 1999 (9) SCC 264 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Alticle 227 of the 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. (9) In the present case the prosecution examined the witnesses to bring home the violation of the provision contained in the Chhattisgarh Vanupaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder. The witnesses examined by the department have proved the seizure of 32 Nos. of hand sawn teak at the relevant time. The petitioner examined himself. Mohd. Tanveer Alam and Mr. Kashyap were also examined in course of enquiry. From the order passed by the prescribed authority, it would appear that the said persons have collected the teak wood hom the forest from one Sudarshan Ram by paying Rs.6000/- and were waiting for any vehicle for the transportation of the same and when the subject ‘ vehicle was stopped and the driver was requested for transportation the driver agreed though when the driver asked for documentation he x ‘ was told that the documents are forgotten in the house (10) In the opinion of this court when admittedly the said Tanveer i Alam and Armt Kashyap did not produce any valid document to show that teak wood has originated from any lawfull source, the driver My should have refused to allow transportation of the teak wood rather than allowing the two strangers and believing them for transportation. (l 1) From the above discussion, it is apparent that the dn'ver of the vehicle who is the son and the agent of the petitioner had not taken reasonable precaution to see that the vehicle is not used in transportation of illicit forest produce. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Khimji Vidhu Vs. Premier High School (supra), when the three subordinate authorities/courts have recorded a concurrent finding, the High Court would not be justified in interfering and setting aside the order in exercise of powers under article 227 ofthe Constitition of India. (l2) In the result, the instant petition has no substance which fails and is hereby dismissed. J Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge