HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Wrlt Petltlon (Cr) No 1652 of 2009 PETITIONER/z Moolchand, S/o Joravarmal Pincha, (Plaintiff) aged about 42 years, R/o Ward No.21 Shash'tri Market Dallirajhara, District Durg(C.G.) Versus Conservator of Forest Kanker Circle Kanker, District Utter Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2. Prescribed Officer & D.F.O. (East), Forest Division Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india} RESPONDENTSI: (Defendants) Present: Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (6-9-201 1 ) 1.‘ By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged Iegality and propriety of the order dated 21-8- t 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhanupratappur, in Criminal Revision M¢1IZQQ8,: afhrming the order dated 17-1—2008 passed by the appellate authority — Conservator of Forests, Kanker Circle, Kanker in Forest Offence Case No.535/2005, affirming the order dated 27—10-2007 passed by the authorized officer — Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Bhanupratappur under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby the Maruti Van bearing registration No.CG-07/9735 has been confiscated under Section 52 of the Act. 2 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the order passed by the authorized officer and that of the appellate authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question was taken by driver Pradeep Soni for repair with permission of the owner, the driver was also taking one patient from Dallirajhara to Bhilai and during the course of travel, the person accompanying the patient told the driver that they Will get treatment at Dondi and not at Bhilai on which the driver turned the vehicle and proceeded for Dondi. When they were passing besides Mathai Hospital Chowk, one Vijay Gupta directed the driver to accompany him on the point of country made pistol and took him towards Bhanupratappur where after confining the driver, alleged Vijay Gupta loaded teak wood in the vehicle. While the driver was again driving the vehicle, the forest officer came and he fled away from the spot. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner — owner of the vehicle was not having any knowledge about the forest offence, he has taken proper precaution and his driver was compelled by one Vijay Gupta for which the petitioner is not responsible. 4. Onlthe other hand, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the petition and submits that the alleged defence and statement of driver Pradeep Soni clearly reveal that the petitioner was closely involved in the commission of forest offence and there was no occasion for the driver for returning towards Dondi. Even defence of the driver relating to showing country made pistol upon him during the course of travel at Mathai Hospital Chowk, Dondi is not natural and does not appear to be true. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was under obligation to prove the defence that the aforesaid offence has been committed without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent i.e. driver Pradeep Soni and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against the use of vehicle for commission of forest offence. But the petitioner has not proved the aforesaid defence. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismiss'ed the revision. . As per the order impugned and specific defence taken by the petitioner, driver of the petitioner was going to Bhilai along with some patient, but on the request of the patient, instead of going to Bhilai the driver turned the vehicle towards Dondi and country made pistol was pointed upon his head at Mathai Hospital Chowk, Dondi, and the driver was kidnapped along with his vehicle. Even as per defence of the petitioner and driver, the driver was required to go to Bhilai, not to Dondi, in case of any further change the driver was required to obtain permission from the petitioner or to refuse to obey such direction which was contrary to his master’s direction. Showing and pointing of country made pistol during the course of travel at Mathai Hospital Chowk, Dondi also does not appear to be natural and true. . In order to save the vehicle from confiscation under Section 52 of the Act, the petitioner was required to prove the fact that the aforesaid vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent i.e. the aforesaid driver and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had taken against the use of vehicle in commission of forest offence. However, the petitioner has utterly failed to prove such defence. While dismissing the revision, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Soma Sd/- T.P Shanna Judge