Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10314 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Lakshmi Devi W/O Devi Sah Resident Of Village - Aghra, Chapri, P.O. - Agahra, P.S. - Sono, District - Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Environment And Forest Department, Govenment Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Environment And Forest Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Range Officer Of Forest, Jamui Forest Division, Jamui .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. Apurva Kumar, A.C. to S.C.10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 20-08-2013 Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 29.3.2013 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Case No.10 of 2012 setting aside order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.9.2012 passed in Appeal No.1 of 2012 and
Facts
affirming the order dated 29.10.2011 of confiscation of truck of the petitioner passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer in Confiscation Case No.16 of 2010. Short facts of the case are that a Tata 407 truck bearing registration No.BR-46A-3966 was intercepted in the night of 24/25th September, 2010 and on search it was found to be loaded with forest woodlogs. The driver and other occupants fled away. The vehicle was seized and reported to the Authorized Patna High Court CWJC No.10314 of 2013 (5) dt.20-08-2013 2/5 Officer, who initiated a proceeding of confiscation of the truck and the woodlogs. In the truck, driving licence was found with the help of which driver of the truck was identified and notices were issued to him. He appeared in the proceeding before the Confiscating Authority and gave statement that the petitioner was the owner of the truck and she had sent the truck for transporting chura from Kharagpur. However, on way back, he on his own loaded woodlogs of one Pankaj Sah. Petitioner also appeared in the proceeding and gave statement in which she stated that she had no knowledge of loading of woodlogs in the truck and she had sent the truck only to transport „chura‟. The Confiscating Officer, however, did not believe the defence of the petitioner and passed orders of confiscation. Petitioner filed her appeal before the Collector, who, by his order dated 18.9.2012, allowed the appeal primarily on the ground that as per statement of the driver and the petitioner it was proved that the petitioner had no knowledge of offence being committed by the driver and, that though the prosecution had cited some witnesses, but none of the witnesses were examined in support of seizure of the vehicle with incriminating articles. Therefore, he allowed the appeal and directed the vehicle to be released. Patna High Court CWJC No.10314 of 2013 (5) dt.20-08-2013 3/5 The prosecution preferred revision against the said order of the Appellate Authority before the Revisional Authority, who has set aside the order of the Appellate Authority by the impugned order. The Revisional Authority primarily held that since driver of the vehicle was own son-in-law of the petitioner, her defence cannot be accepted that she had no knowledge of the offence being committed by her driver.
Legal Reasoning
been already held by this Court in its order dated 25.9.2008 passed in Cr.W.J.C.No.975 of 2007 that for seizure of the vehicle, it has to be established that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge of the offence committed. He also places reliance on an order of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale, reported in 1998(1) PLJR 21(SC). A counter affidavit has been filed in this case. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the driver being own son-in-law of the petitioner, it can be presumed that the petitioner had knowledge of the offence being committed and hence, the truck was rightly confiscated by the Divisional Forest Officer. He refers to sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (State Amendment) in this regard and submits that in law onus to prove innocence lies on the owner of the Patna High Court CWJC No.10314 of 2013 (5) dt.20-08-2013 4/5 vehicle, in absence of which it has to be presumed that the owner was in know of the vehicle being used for committing offence. Sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the State Amendment Act reads as follows : “52(5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other articles (other than the forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in the clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves satisfaction of authorized officer that any such tools, arms, vehicles, 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 precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence.” to So far as legal position is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents rightly submits that sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the Act does provide that it is the owner of the vehicle who has to prove to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer that the vehicle in question was being used without his/her knowledge or connivance. But this presumption in law is rebuttable. In the present case, statement of the petitioner before the Authorized Officer was that she had sent the truck to transport „chura‟ but the driver on his own had loaded woodlogs on the truck. This statement is supported by the statement of the driver himself, who admitted his guilt and specifically stated before the Authorized Patna High Court CWJC No.10314 of 2013 (5) dt.20-08-2013 5/5 Officer that on way back, without knowledge of the petitioner, he had loaded woodlogs. The driver has also taken a defence that the woodlogs were of the raiyati land of one Pankaj Sah, in support of which valid challan was produced. Be that as it may, from the statement of the petitioner before the Authorized Officer supported by the driver, this Court finds that the presumption in law as laid down in sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the Act was satisfactorily rebutted by the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the Revisional Authority has committed error of law in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner could not establish her innocence. The order is not sustainable in law and the same is, therefore, set aside. Order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.9.2012 passed in Appeal No.1 of 2012 is, therefore, confirmed. The directions issued by the Appellate Authority shall be complied with by the Divisional Forest Officer positively within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed. Pradeep/- (Jayanandan Singh, J)
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has