THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.764 of 2002 ORDER: The deceased first respondent was the owner of a lorry bearing No. AEN 3339. On 12.04.1993, the officials of the Forest Department of Nellore District received information that the said vehicle and other lorries bearing Nos. AEP 5567 and ADC 3366 are used in smuggling red sander logs and they are proceeding from Venkatagiri. A check was laid at Venkateswarapuram Commercial Tax Check Post. Two lorries bearing Nos. AEN 3339 and AEP 5567 were noticed coming from Nellore side at about 9.00 a.m. on 12.04.1993. They did not stop on being required. The forest officials tried to chase them. The lorry of the first respondent has came to halt at Kavali on account of traffic jam. Thereafter, the vehicle was intercepted and it was found that though it was loaded with husk of groundnut, logs of red sander were found in it. The lorry was taken to the Forest Office and panchanama was conducted. Proceedings under Section 44(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 were initiated and through his order, dated 27.07.1993, the Authorised Officer, Nellore, the second petitioner herein, directed confiscation of the lorry as well as the seized stock. The first respondent filed Forest Appeal No.4 of 1993 before the Court of the District Judge, Nellore. During the pendency of the appeal, he died and his legal representatives being respondents 2 to 5 were brought on record. Through his order, dated 06.08.2001, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and directed release of the lorry. Hence, this writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Forests submits that the lower appellate Court proceeded on totally improper lines of adjudication and directed release of the lorry, pointing out certain alleged defects in the panchanama. He contends that when it was proved beyond any doubt that the lorry was involved in smuggling of red sander and when the respondents did not even plead that the lorry was not involved, there was no basis for release of the same. It is also submitted that the respondents failed to prove that they did not have the knowledge of the use of the vehicle or that they have taken precautions to ensure that the lorry is not utilized in smuggling of red sanders. The writ petition was listed for hearing on 19.12.2008. There was no representation for the respondents. Hence, it was directed to be listed today. There is no representation even today also. On receiving credible information that the vehicle of the respondents was utilized in smuggling the red sanders, necessary arrangements were made at the check post to verify the vehicle as and when it reaches the spot. The vehicle did reach the check post where the officials of the Forest Department were waiting. It did not stop in spite of signals and a long chase had to be undertaken. Fortunately, for the Forest Department, there was a traffic jam at Kavali and the vehicle could not proceed further. Soon after it was intercepted, a panchanama was conducted after taking it to the Forest Office. No where in the proceedings, the respondents have denied the involvement of the lorry in smuggling the red sanders. Their plea was only that the vehicle was utilized without their knowledge. For this purpose, heavy burden rested upon them. Once the lorry is found to be utilized in smuggling the red sanders, presumption is that owner had the knowledge about it and accorded permission to the driver also. If the vehicle was utilized without such permission, he has to plead and prove the relevant facts. Though it is somewhat difficult to prove a negative fact, at least necessary ingredients have to be placed before the Court. In the matters of this nature, it has only to be seen whether the owner has taken proper precaution to ensure that the vehicle is not utilized for unlawful activities. Further, the nature of steps taken by the owner immediately, on coming to know the seizure of the lorry for such offences, would also become relevant. In the instant case, the Authorised Officer has discussed elaborately, as to the circumstances that led to the seizure of the vehicle, together with the red sanders. Nothing was placed before him by the respondents to suggest that they have taken all the precautions to ensure that the lorry is not utilized for such purposes. The appellate Court found fault with the order of the Authorised Officer mostly on the alleged defect in conducting panchanama. The Court opined that the panchanama ought to have been conducted on the spot and not in the Forest Office. It is not even pointed out as to how that would have a bearing upon the knowledge or otherwise of the owner of the lorry. If at all the panchanama was defective, it ought to have entailed in avoiding the entire proceedings. That, however, was nobody’s case. Further, it must not be forgotten that the driver of the lorry was so notorious that he jumped the signal, proceeded in a rash manner for about 50 to 70 k.m. and unfortunately for him, he had to stop only on account of traffic jam. Further, the verification of the lorry involved, removing of husk of groundnut, unloading of red sander logs and all this was not supposed to take place in the National Highway. The only area the appellate Court was to verify was as to whether the respondents have pleaded and proved their innocence or lack of knowledge about the occurrence. That, however, does not find place in the order of the appellate Court. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.12.2008 kdl