LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.601 OF 2004 ******* Against the order dated 27.4.2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11486 of 2003. ******* RAM MURAT YADAV, son of Shri Samuja Yadav, resident of village- Barhahiya Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, Kalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P.). ….Petitioner…….Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Commissioner and Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Extension Forest Division, Nehru Nagar, Patna-800013. …. Respondents…..Respondents. ******* For the Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meeta Sinha, Advocate. For the S t a t e : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.- 16 with Mr. Rajeev Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-16. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ******* S.K. Katriar, J. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 11486 of 2003, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 27.4.2004, whereby he has upheld the order of the learned revisional authority who had refused to release the truck bearing Registration No.U.P.53F-4193. 2 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be recounted. It appears that the appellant is the owner of the said truck. It was seized along with logs of mango woods, by the forest authorities, while being unloaded. The driver and the khalasi of the truck fled away. Search of the truck was made in which the transit permit issued by the official of the Uttar Pradesh on 26.8.2001 was found. On enquiry, the same was found to be forged. There was also no hammer mark on the wood. The Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Patna, passed order dated 22.10.2001, in Confiscation Case No.14 of 2000-01, whereby he confiscated the goods and the truck. The appellant challenged the same by preferring Confiscation Appeal No.16 of 2001-02, which was rejected by the learned District Magistrate, Patna. The appellant moved this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 297 of 2002, which was disposed of by order dated 31.1.2003, whereby he was advised to exhaust the remedy of revision. The learned revisional authority rejected the appellant’s revision application by order dated 9.8.2003 (Annexure-6), passed in Revision Case No.6 of 2003. The appellant’s present writ petition has also been rejected. Hence this appeal. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. That the appellant’s case was that he was not aware that the driver and 3 khalasi of the truck on return journey after unloading the goods at the destination station dispatched by the appellant, was hired by one Guru Dayal Singh who had loaded the said logs of mango wood to be transported to the destination nominated by him. During the course of journey, the goods-laden truck was seized. It appears to us that there was really a doubt whether or not the appellant was the owner of the logs of mango wood. We would, therefore, give him the benefit of doubt. Secondly, the appellant has been adequately punished for the misdeed, if any. The truck had been out of circulation for about nine years, and he has been deprived of the business. We are, therefore, of the view that the truck may be released on “as is, where is basis”. The appellant shall not be entitled to claim any compensation or the like for deterioration in the condition of the truck. 4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (S K Katriar, J.) Birendra Prasad Verma, J. I agree. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated 23rd day of September, 2010. S.K.Pathak/(NAFR).