Inderdev Gupta vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

N.K. Agarwal, J.—Instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by IIIrd Additional Session judge, Ambikapur in criminal Revision No. 67/2007 whereby whereunder the petitioner''s revision has been dismissed. As per prosecution case, petitioner is the owner of confiscated vehicle i.e. Mahindra & Mahindra pick-up van. On 26.11.2004 at about 7 pm above vehicle was intercepted by the forest officials. The said vehicle was found involved in illegal transporting of forest produce (timber). Since the driver and the persons sitting in the vehicle could not produce valid document for transportation of forest produce, the vehicle was seized and forest offence was registered by the prescribed Authority i.e. sub Divisional Forest officer, Pathalgaon. After issuing show-cause notice and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the prescribed authority vide its order dated 9.8.2005 confiscated the vehicle in question in favour of the Government. Against the above order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Conservation of forest, Ambikapur, Sarguja. The conservation of forest vide its order dated 16.8.2005 dismissed the appeal and vide impugned order the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: the vehicle in question was given on hire by the petitioner to one Devendra Kumar for transportation Of old furniture. Petitioner also produced him as his witness wherein he has deposed the he was transporting old furniture, therefore, petitioner has proved to the satisfaction of authorized officer that the vehicle in question was used in illegal transportation of forest produce without his knowledge or connivance and, therefore, all the courts below have illegally passed and affirmed the order of confiscation of the petitioner''s vehicle.

On the other hand, Shri Arun Sao, learned Govt. Advocate for the state supported the order impugned and would submit: prescribed authority, appellate authority and revisional authority have concurrently recorded a finding that the vehicle in question was involved in illegal transportation of forest produce [timber]. He would further submit that for the reasons best known to him, petitioner did not examine himself to prove his defence and, therefore, the petition being sans merit deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including order impugned.

Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision contained in sub-section 5 of section 52 of the Indian forest act (briefly ''the Act'') which are applicable in the state of Chhattisgarh which reads thus:-

52 Seizure of property liable to confiscation. - (5) No. order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, vehicle, boats, chains or any other article (other than the timber or forest produce seized shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorized officer that any such tools, vehicle boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precaution had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission.

The above provision gives opportunity of hearing to the person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 52 and also puts a burden on him to prove his innocence by adducing evidence and placing cogent material in this regard.

The requirement is mandatory that owner has to prove that he had no knowledge or had not connived. Mere assertion without anything else will not suffice. There is another requirement that either he or his agent, if any, or the person in-charge thereof had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use. This aspect has to be established by the concerned person by placing sufficient material.

Now reverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner has failed to prove that the above forest offence has been committed without his knowledge or connivance and that he has taken all the reasonable and necessary precautions against use. Even he himself did not enter into witness box.

In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned warranting interference of this court under article 227 of the constitution of India.

It is well settled principle of law that this court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case.

Accordingly, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.