IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.97 of 2006 Date of decision : July 8, 2009 Deepak Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is the owner of Swaraj Mazda Truck No.HP-33-8352. On 14th May, 2003, that truck was intercepted on Mandi-Katola link road, near Jawahar Nagar locality of Mandi Town. On checking, it was found that though apparently bags of maize were loaded in the body of the truck, underneath those bags there were 77 scants/pieces of Deodar wood. Truck alongwith the timber was seized. A case was got registered with the police. 2. An application was made to the Authorised Officer, under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, as amended by the State of Himachal Pradesh, for confiscation of the truck. The present petitioner moved an application for the release of the truck and also filed reply to the show cause notice issued to him, on the basis of police request for confiscation of the truck. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. In his reply, the petitioner took the plea that he had no knowledge of transportation of timber by his truck by the driver and that as a matter of fact on the day of interception of the truck, he was busy at a workshop in Mandi town, in connection with repair of his Indica Car. Counter to the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice was filed, in which it was stated that driver being the agent of the owner of the vehicle, presumption had to be drawn that the driver was carrying the timber with the knowledge of the owner, i.e. the petitioner. 4. Parties adduced evidence before the Authorised Officer. Authorised Officer ordered the confiscation of the truck. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Authorised Officer to the Sessions Court has been dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Petitioner took specific plea that he had no knowledge of the transportation of timber by his truck and that the timber was being carried by the driver without his knowledge and authority. Petitioner specifically stated that on the day of interception of truck he remained busy in a workshop in Souli Khad, Mandi, in connection with the repair of his Car upto 10-10.30 p.m. and had no knowledge of the interception of his truck, until he was called by the police. In …3… the counter to the reply of the petitioner’s plea that the petitioner had remained busy that day upto 10 p.m., in connection with the repair of his Car, was not denied. 7. It was, for the first time, during the course of inquiry that evidence was sought to be led by the State that the Car of the petitioner had crossed the site of Naka a little before the truck to counter petitioner’s plea that he had no knowledge of timber, being transported by the truck. Even in the FIR, there was no reference to the Car of the petitioner having crossed the site of the Naka, prior to the truck. Petitioner himself stated on oath that he was busy at a workshop in Mandi Town, on the relevant day, upto 10 p.m. He also examined the workshop owner, namely DW-1 Sukh Dev, who testified that the petitioner remained in his workshop, throughout the day, in connection with the repair of his Indica Car and that he was free at 10 p.m., when the Car, after repair, was handed over to him. 8. It is apparent that evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the State that the Car went ahead of the truck is an afterthought just to counter the aforesaid plea of the petitioner. As already noticed, such a plea was not taken in the counter to the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice. Also, in the FIR, which was lodged with the police about the interception of the truck and the recovery of timber therefrom, there was no reference to the Car of the petitioner being ahead of the truck. …4… 9. In the face of the abovestated position, I am of the considered view that the Authorised Officer was not justified in holding that the timber was being carried in the truck with the knowledge of the petitioner and that petitioner’s plea that it was being carried without his knowledge was false. Consequently, the petition is allowed, order of the Authorised Officer, dated 17th February, 2006, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, vide judgment dated 3rd July, 2006, is set aside and the truck, in question, is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of. July 8, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.