HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITig^ (227) No. 50 of 2009 PETITIONER : Mohan Dewangan S/o Shri Mangluram Dewangan., aged about 60 years, R/o Sargipal Para Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Conser^ator ofForest, Kanker Circle, Kanker. 3. Deputy Forest Divisional Officer (West), Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. A^nihotn, J. Present: Ms. Poonam Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9th day ofJanuary, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P/5) whereby, the Additional Sessions Judge, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, dismissed the revision against the orderdated 28.05.2008 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Conservator of Forest i.e. Appellate Authority, Kanker Circle, directing confiscation ofTractor bearing No. C.G. 17/ZF-0326 and Trolley bearing No. C.G. 18/B-0052 involved in the forest offence, on 06.12.2007. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell are that the Tractor bearing No. C.G. 17/ZF- 0326 alongwith Trolley bearing No. C.G. 18/B-0052 was found illegally transporting 10 quintal forest wood. The said Tractor & Trolley was seized and a forest offence being No. 409/13/07 was registered on 06.12.2007. The competent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), West Kondagaon, issued a notice to the petitioner before initiatmg the proceedings. The proceedings resulted into confiscation of the above stated Tractor & Trolley 7. under the provisions of Section 52(3) ofthe Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short 'theAct, 1927') byorderdated 20.02.2008 (AnnexureP/1). The competent authority, after having examined all the witnesses and documents, came to the conclusion that the above stated Tractor & Trolley was involved in illegal transportation of firewood which was violative of Sections 33(1) and 41(3) oftheAct, 1927. It was further found that the forest offence took place within the knowledge and help ofthe owner ofthe said Tractor & Trolley. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Conser^ator of Forest. The Appellate Authority, by detailed judgment and order dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure P/3), affirmed the findings of the Appellate Authority. It was further held that the findings were recorded, after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the parties. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, a revision was prefen-ed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Uttar Baskar, Kanker. The Additional Sessions Judge., by impugned order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P/5), found that the petitioner, being owner, knew about the forest offence and thereafter the authorities below have passed the order of confiscation afiter having afforded an opportunity of hearing to the parties, thus, revision was also dismissed. Thus, this petition. The main grounds in this writ petition are that the petitioner was not aware about the fact that the said Tractor & Trolley was involved in a forest offence, the petitioner, being owner of the said vehicle, has no knowledge about the seized firewood, the Tractor & Trolley is only source of income of the petitioner and the petitioner was not present at the site ofoffence. The findings recorded by the Court below and the authorities below are per^erse. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The competent authority has examined as ,/^ '/c. C 1*11 v\ i\.. ^ ^ 8. 9. 10. 11. 'Uz many as six prosecution witnesses and four defence witnesses as produced by the petitioner. It was clearly found that the son ofthe petitioner namely Mohan Dewangan was working as escort and at the moment the Tractor & Trolley was seized, he was present. Thus, the conclusion ofthe authorities below and the court below that the offence had taken place within the knowledge and assistance of the owner of the above stated Tractor & Trolley, is not per^erse. The petitioner has not denied the alleged offence. This Court, in exercise of its super^isory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from mterfermg with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P/5), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Uttar Bastar Kanker, is just, proper and unexceptionable and needs no interference. Accordingly this petition is dismissed summarily. Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge