IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14352 of 2002 Between: The Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad Party, Warangal, O/o Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND Bathini Chinna Venkataiah, S/o Musalaiah, R/o H.No.3-10-199, Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of certiorari" calling for the records relating to the case in C.M.A.No.40 of 1998 dated 20-11-2001 on the filed of the Prinicipal District Judge, at Warangal and quash the same as illegal and against the facts on record and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.14352 of 2002 ORDER: The respondent is the owner of lorry bearing No. APH 3132. On 07-10-1997, the Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad Party, Warangal, intercepted the lorry at Mallampally village on the road from Warangal to Mulug in the early hours at 2.45 a.m. It was found that though the lorry appeared to be filled with Moram, on a further check it emerged that the teak logs were concealed under it. The timber was not covered by any permits. The driver and cleaner were arrested and the lorry together with the timber was seized. Proceedings under sub-section (2-A) and (2-B) of Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 were initiated before the Authorized Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal. After conducing enquiry, the Authorized Officer passed an order dated 24.8.1998 directing the seizure of the timber as well as the vehicle. The respondent filed C.M.A.No.40 of 1998 in the court of the Principal District Judge. The appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 20.11.2001. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Forest submits that the driver of the lorry confessed before the Authorized Officer that he was paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- for transporting the teakwood and this fact was sufficient to impute knowledge and active participation not only to the driver but also the owner of the vehicle. She contends that the lower appellate court proceeded on hyper technical grounds and had set-aside the order of confiscation of the vehicle. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it was proved beyond any pale of doubt that the respondent was at Delhi at the relevant point of time and he did not have any knowledge about the offence being committed by the driver. The lorry owned by the respondent was found transporting teak logs without permits on 7.10.1997. Normally the presumption is that the owner and driver of the vehicle aware of the factum of vehicle being used for such illicit purpose. If the owner pleads that he is not aware of the offence being committed by using the vehicle, he has to place relevant material before the Authorized Officer. The standard of proof in the matter of this nature has its own typical feature. It is naturally difficult for any one to prove a negative fact. Therefore, the effort of the courts would be to verify the attendant circumstances and to examine whether it can be inferred from such acts that the owner can be said to be having knowledge. It is no doubt true that the driver admitted that he was aware of the fact that the lorry is loaded with teak logs not covered by permit and for that purpose he was paid Rs.3,000/-. From this, it is difficult to impute the knowledge of the respondent. He specifically pleaded that he was in Delhi on personal work on 7.10.1997. This was not even disputed by the petitioner. It is specifically pleaded that he is not aware of fact that the lorry was used by his driver for an illegal purpose. The lower appellate court has referred to the judgment of this court in W.A.No.184 of 1992 and applied the principle laid down therein. This court is not inclined to take any different view. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 23.12.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD}