IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1129 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2176 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 5413 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1129 of 2011. ====================================================== Rambabu Singh, Son of late Balmiki Singh, R/o Village – Mahendrapur, P.S. – Hathidah, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner - Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 3. The District Magistrate, Munger, 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Munger, 5. Sri Birendra Kumar Daradh, Forest Area Range Officer, Jamalpur, Munger, 6. Sri Surendra Prasad, Forest Range Officer, Dharhara, Munger, 7. Sri Abdul Sattar (Forester), son of late Sekh Amzaz, R/o Mirjapur Barad, P.O. – Dariyapur, P.S. – Mofasil, District – Munger, 8. The Assistant Mining Officer (District Mining Officer), Munger .... .... Respondents – Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Narayan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh and Mr. Amardeep, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. D.K. Sinha, AAG 2 and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, AC to AAG 2. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 24.08.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 5413 of 2011. The delay of 20 days occurred in filing the Letters Patna High Court LPA No.1129 of 2011 (3) dt.24-08-2011 2 / 3 2 Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1129 of 2011. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 16th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 2176 of 2010. In Confiscation Proceeding No. 18 of 2006, the appellant’s truck bearing Registration No. BR 9D/2801 has been confiscated for transporting the forest produce without permission. The appellant was held to be guilty. The vehicle and the goods were ordered to be confiscated. The said order made by the authorized officer has been confirmed by the appellate authority in Appeal No. 3 of 2007 and the State Government in Revision Application No. 16 of 2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the above CWJC No. 2176 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by the three authorities below, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Narayan Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has strenuously urged that the offending consignment was carried by the driver of the vehicle without the consent or the knowledge of the owner. The vehicle, therefore, could not have been confiscated. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Forest Conservator & Ors. Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale [1998 (1) PLJR (SC) 21]. Learned single Judge has considered the plea raised by the appellant. The learned single Judge has noted that the appellant Patna High Court LPA No.1129 of 2011 (3) dt.24-08-2011 3 / 3 3 went on changing his defence from stage to stage. Besides, if it were the claim of the appellant that the offending consignment was transported by the driver of the vehicle without the consent or the knowledge of the appellant, the onus to prove lay upon the appellant. Mr. Narayan Singh has candidly admitted that the appellant did not examine the driver of the vehicle in support of his defence nor did he prove the defence taken by him. In absence of the proof of the defence taken by the appellant, the authorities below and the learned single Judge have rightly not believed the same. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by the authorities below and learned single Judge, no case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)