HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11490 of 2006 ORDER: The respondent is the owner of a van bearing No. TN 37 H 5445. On 25.11.1997, he submitted a complaint before the Percumpalle Police Station, Dharmapuri District, stating that the vehicle was stolen from his driver by tying his hands. A case was registered under Section 397 of I.P.C. On 1.1.1998, a van bearing No. KA 04 P 7495 was intercepted by the officials of the Forest Department, Chittoor District on the Kuppam-Krishnagiri Highway at Mallanur Cross Road. The vehicle was chased and the driver did not stop on signal and after proceeding some distance, the occupants of the vehicle are said to have flood away. It was found that sandal wood logs were loaded in the vehicle. Proceedings were initiated under Section 44 (2) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’). On further verification, it emerged that the said vehicle is the one with Registration No. TN 37 H 5445 and that its number plate was changed by the smugglers. The respondent approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 7149 of 1998 for release of the said vehicle. The writ petition was disposed of directing release of the vehicle subject to certain conditions. The Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Piler, the petitioner herein, issued notices to the affected parties seeking response and ultimately passed orders on 5.10.2000 directing confiscation of the vehicle. The respondent filed CMA No.37 of 2000 in the Court of the District Judge, Chittoor. The appeal was allowed on 3.5.2005 and the order of confiscation of the vehicle was set aside. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Forests and the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has undertaken extensive discussion in the order dated 5.10.2000 for ordering confiscation of the vehicle. The Act empowers the petitioner to direct confiscation of a recepticle or a vehicle, in case it was utilized in illicit transport of forest produce. However, it must be satisfied that the vehicle was used with the knowledge of the owner. If it emerges that the owner did not have the knowledge of the fact that the vehicle was put to transport of illicit forest produce, he cannot be penalized with the confiscation of the vehicle. This view was taken by this Court in fairly large number of cases, including the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Chennur vs. Vijay B. Gulati and Others([1]). Further, the respondent did not plead ownership of the goods that were found to have been transported in the vehicle. His concern is only about the vehicle. The petitioner arrived at a conclusion that the vehicle was used with the knowledge of the respondent on the basis of certain discrepancies in the depositions of the driver and other witnesses. In categorical terms, the driver has said that when the vehicle was on hire on 24.11.1997 for a trip to Heganekal, about eight persons have attacked him and took way the vehicle by tying his hands and legs. The very fact that a complaint was registered on the next day itself discloses that the respondent parted with the possession of the vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was knowledge, much less participation on the part of the respondent, for commission of the offence. The learned District Judge has undertaken extensive discussion in arriving at this conclusion. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall refund the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent for release of the vehicle within a period of one month from today. No costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date: 11th March, 2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in one week. B/o pnb [1] 1997(6) ALT 238