S-NSI.f ®..,^ ^ J-. ^C^. IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETITION (227) N0. V\SrX OF 2010 PETITIONER . Jawahir Lal S/o Ramfalram, caste Gond, aged about 35 years, owner of vehicles, R/o Village Kaknesa, District SurgujaC.G. . c ^-^{^^y ^•-•l ) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. State of C.G. through the F'rescribed Authority North Forest Division Surguja, Wadrafnagar, District Surguja C.G. _ Jvfo\v- ^^^vv-,cihi-. 2. Birbal S/o Ramlal (Tractor Driver), Village Kakiiesa, District Surguja C.G. 3. Shankar Dayal @ Sukhdeo S/o Ramdeo (Tractor Oriver) R/o Village Cheri, Police Station Dhudi, District Sonbhadra U.P. c^t^^^v^-^o' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. '^^ ^•••"" ^. ^ 1 ^^ I r [ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR Wrlt Petitjon ^227) No. 4S7€of 2010 JawahirLal RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others. ^•^ a' Presem : WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTJTUjOMOE (SB: Hon'bje Mr. N.K. Aaarwa[^J,) Mr. Rakesh Panaey, counsei ror the petitioner. IVIr. S.R.J. Jaiswai. PL fortne Sraie. J U DG JViENT (13.05.2011) 1 instant petition, fiied under Artlcie 227 of the Constjtution of india, cal!s in question the JegaJIty and propriety of order dated 28.6,2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Sarguja) in Crimina! Revision No. 25/2010 whereby and whereunder petitioner's revision against the order of confjscatlon passed by S.D.0., Forest Department and confirmed by the Conservator of Forest, Ambikapur, Sarguja has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Is the owner of tractor bearing No. CG 015A-5940 and TroHey No. CG015A-5941 and one Mahindra Tractor chassis No. RDT 20404 and troiley chasis No. SAT- 0036/07/08. The above tractors and trolley were seized by the forest authorities on tne ground that they were engaged irs iiiegai transportation of 78 cubic feet and 94 cubic feet of forest produce i.e. hard coal without any valid transit pass. On account of above selzure, forest offence No. 3251/11 was registered under the provisions of Indian Forest Act,1927 (for short 'the Act5) and proceedings of confiscatjon of the said truck was drawn under Sectson 52(3) of the said Act. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Wadrafnagar s.e. authorized officer, issued a show cause notlce to the petitioner for confiscation of the above tractors and troiiey. 4. After recording the evidence and after givjng fuii opportunity of hearing to the petltioner, the Forest Officer held that the said tractors and trolly were Invoived in iliegai transportatlon of forest produce l.e. hard coai ^ and passed the order of confiscation on 7.9,2009. Thereagainst the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appeilate authonty ~ cum - consen/ator of Forest, Sarguja who affirmed the order dated 7.9<2009 by order dated 23.2.2010 Thereagainst the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court vide impugned order dismissed the petitioner's revision, Hence, thls writ petltion. 5< After appreciating the entire material and evidence adduced In the case, Sub DJvisionaI Forest Officer, Appeiiate Authority as wei! as tearned Sesslons Judge have concurrently heid that the above tractors were invoived in i!iegal transportation offorest produced i,e.hard coai. 6. Section 52 of the Act provides for seizure of property iiabie to confiscation and procedure therefore. Sub Section (5) of Section 52 provides that no order of confiscatlon under sub Section (3) of any too!s, vehides, boats, ropes, chains or any other article (other than timber or forest produce seized) shai! be made if any person referred to in ciause (b) of sub section (4) proves to be satisfactlon of authorized officer that any such toois, vehicies , boats, ropss, chains or other articies were used without his knowledge or connlvance or, as the case may be \¥ithout the knov/iedge or connivance of his servant or agent and that ali reasonabie and necessar^ precautions had been taken against use of objects aforesaid for commjssion of forest offence. 7. Shri Pandey, iearned counsel appearing for the petitloner could not point out any JJJegaiity, pen/ersity or absurdity in the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below. He also faiied to prove that the above tractors and troiiey were' used in commlssion of the forest offence vvithout his knowledge or connivance.. 8. Consldenng the above aspects of the case J find no jllegibiiity in the order impugned warranting Jnterference in the thjspetitjon in exerdse of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitutlon of India 9, ' it is weil settied princlpie of iaw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisoryjurisdictjon under Articie 227 ofthe Constitut.Jon of Jndia, shouid refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court beiow except in such cases where pen/ersity, Jiiegajjty or jurisdictionaj error is writ large on the face of the record, which js not in the present case. 10. Therefore, the petitlon belng wJthout substance is to be and Is herebydismissed. I Sd/- N.K.Agarwal 1 Judge