.IN.'FHE"n)I®i?e£)@RTaFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPKR WP^O. : '^OS'2- f2003 PETITIE>NE:RS l.: 'SHANKAR KUMAR'AGR^WAK, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S0N QF LATE SAGARMAL AGRAWAt, ' ^^ ^^ ^^.y ^•^' <€»'"':..1' fe?v ! , • : : y RAKESH AGRA%ftL SON OF LATE SAGARMAL? AGRAWAL, AGED ABOTJT24YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLA.GE-RAMANUJGANJ; POLICE STATION AND TAH. RAMANUJGANJ, DISTRICT SURGUJA, C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. . •' S1%TE OF CHHATTISGARH : -THROUGH : THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, D.K.S. BHAWAN RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH). 2. .AUTHORIZED OFFICER . / DIVISIONAL FQREST^ OFFICER, EAST SURGUJA, ; FOREST .DIVISION AMBIKAPUR, DISTRICT SURGUJA (CHHAmSGARH) ^a^ ^ WmTP'En'ITION^JEBiraa^^EH^LES.2^ f ^^Wy CONSTITU'FIONOFINDIA ;^"l®epetitioher, named abpve mQst humbly and respectfully submtts .1?" as under ; 01) PARTICUtARS.AB©CT'3'HEPE'FI'FI©NERS: ' ' i : Asper the detailsgivenm^tl-tecausetifle. | 02) RARTICULARSABOUTTHERESPQNDENTS: ', ! . AsperthedetaUslgiveninth.&causGtitle. ; ' . , :y,: :s f ''^ -^' -qP^ b HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bteShri JusticePradtantKumarMishra W^.No.4<»S2of2(W3 Shantar KumarAgrawal ahd amrther. Varsus SteteofChhattJ^arhandimothw. QJiD<5 Po^for 114)5-2011 SdbV- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \.^^/ v HIGH COURT OF CMHAmSGARH AT BU.ASPUR Sinate tench: Hon'bteShri Justfce PrashantKumar Mishra WfritPetitk>nNo.4052of M03 Shankar Kumar Agrawd and anoftor. PETmOMERS Vereus RESPONDENTS Stateof Chhattisj»rttandaiother. ShriN.K.Chatajee, coureel forthepetitionas. Shri Vinay hterit, Dy. Advocate General witti Shri WnodDedtn»ukh, Advocato for the State/respondents. ORDER (U/0&2011) In this petiUon under ArUcto 226Q27 cS the CondKutton <rf India peUGonera are chaltengirHj the tegafity, validity and propristyo^ tb<» Qlder dated29/07Q003(AnnexureP/1)passedbytheFirdAddiUCTisilSessk>ns Judge, Ambikapur dismteing ttelr Criminal R®nsionwhich m tKrn was preferred to chaWenge the appelfate wder dated 07/04/19M passod by the Conserwator of Forest, Ambikapur Clrcle by whkrft the original order passed by the Prescribed Authority was confinned. By this orders p^itkMiere' truck bearing registration No. B.P.A. - 9271 has been ordered to be confiscated as ttie same was invoh/ed in fransportaUon <rf forest produce without obtaining the requlred tranat pass. (2) Facte of ttie case, briefly stated, are that at sAout 4.00 a.m. on 23/09/1997 the subject vehfcte was interce(rted and seardied by larrier forest guard wherein <he vehicte was found to cany and trwreport 127 bags amounting to 37 quintafe of'Lodh CW»a/'withouthaving snytran^ pass. R)rest Crime No.6®^17was regMerwl and.^hei^syblect .trupk akwig with the forest prodi^ wassazed. Shri A.K.Singh, the Rorest Range Oflicer, Rsupurdi^rict Surguja complrted the Inve^^on SBd the infonnsrtion regarding proceedings initiated under SecUon % (rfttw Indian t?;it ffilty'ifiht! .€ay^. -^ '.t''--sff .^'•3 J. Forest Act, 1927 was sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj, District Surguja on 24/09/1997. (3) The Prescribed Authority issued Show Cause Notices ta the driver, conductor and owner of the vehicle asto why the forest-produce as well as the vehicle may not be confiscated. The petitioners submitted their reply and denied having committedany forest offence. According to the petitioners the driver and conductor were never altowed to transport any forest produce and that the forest offence has been committed without their knowledge and consent, therefore the vehicle may not be confiscated. It was also stated by them that theseized article is not forest produce, thereforethe proceedings may be dropped. (4) The Prescribed Authority directed confiscation of the vehicle and seized article. Appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed bythe Conservator ofForestand by the impugnedordertheRevision Petition preferred bythem has also been rejected. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that it is not proved that the article was forest produce and that in any case the owner of the vehicle had neverauthorized the driverto transport any forest produce and the said transportation, if any, had taken place without his knowledge and consent, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. On the other hand learned State counsel has supported the impugned order and has submitted that ttie instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority andthe Revisional Authority need not be interfered with as there is no perversity or illegality in the said order. . llllllilt1 SK 3 (6) From the impugned order it would appear that when the vehicle was intercepted petitioner No.2 Rakesh Agrawat who is the owner of the vehicle was sittlng in the vehicle who informed the forest emptoyees/ofRcers that grocery articles are loaded in the truck however when it was checked, it was found to carry 'Locff? Chhal' and when transit pass was demanded petitioner No. 2 Rakesh Agrawal and the driver stated that they are not in possession of any transit pass, in stead, they offered bribe of Rs.200/- which the forest employee refused and locked the barrier. Members of the Flying Squad team who were stationed in the Rest House were informed and thereafter case was registered. AW-7 Nawal Kishore Tiwari who is the Watchman in the barrier, AW-11 Rajmani Dubey Range Assistant. AW-6 Rambilas Yadav Forest Guard and AW-9 S.B. Singh, Range Officer.have confirmed the ab&ve statement. (7) The Additional Sessions Judge has extensivety and elaborately deatt with the arguments raised by the petitioners regarding the seized article not being a forest produce and by referring to its botanical name and the concurrent findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in its order dated 07/04/1998 and Appellate Authority's order dated 12/04/1999, has confirmed the finding that the said 'Lodh Chhal'is a forest produce. (8) It is to be seen that the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authorities have passed concurrent findings andorders confiscating the vehicle and the seized article. (9) In the matter of State of W. B. Vs. Gopa/ Saricsr reported in 2002(1} SCC 495 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has hefd that order of confiscation would be justified if the' authorized officer is satisfied about its use in commission of the offence. ^ lEliBII] (10) In the matter of State of West Bengal and another Vs. Mahua Sarkar reported in 2008 (12) SCC 763 the Hon'bie 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 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 case the authorized officer had passed an order of confiscation and the District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the vehjcte owner. The order was set-aside by the High Court by allowing the writ petition filed by the vehicle owner. The Hon'ble Sypreme Court, while allowing the appeal, observed that the High Court erroneously allowed the writ petitjon filed by .:?•.. the vehicle owner without properly analyzing the' position. (11) In the matter of KhlmJI Vidhu Vs. Premler Hlgh School reported in 1999 (9) SCC 264 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Articte 227 ofthe Constitution of tndia the High Court may correct errors ofjurisdiction and the like but not to upset pure findings of fact, which fall in the domain of an appellate Court only. - (12) In view of the above and the law laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, this Court, while examining the facts of the present case, has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners have failed to point-out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is absolutely nothing to impeach and point •Si:.^^.^^ '^s-'^^^ 5 out any infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order and thus the instant petition deserves to beand is hereby dismissed. (13) No order as to costs. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge f-