R.L.Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3163 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                          NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           W.P.(227) No. 3963 of 2011
                         Order Reserved on 6.10.2021
                         Order Delivered on 16.11.2021

      R.L. Shrivastava, aged about 67 years, S/o. Shri Nathlal Shrivastava, By
      Caste Kayrath, R/o. Infront of PWD Rest house, Bhanupratappur, District
      Bastar, Kanker.
                                                                ---- Petitioner
                                    Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh through Regional Forest Officer, Korar (General),
      District Uttar Bastar Kanker.
                                                              ---- Respondent

For the Petitioner : Shri Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For the Respondent/ State          :   Shri Alok Nigam, G.A.



          Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
                                 CAV ORDER

      Heard.

1. This petition has been brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India being aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the Learned

Additional Sessions Judge, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker in Criminal Revision

No. 26 of 2009 by dismissing the revision and confirming the order of

confiscation passed by the Appellate Authority and Conservator of Forest,

Kanker, whereby the order of confiscation passed by the Confiscation

Authority, Divisional Forest Officer, Korar dated 11.6.2009 was upheld.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that on 8.10.2007, the

driver of the petitioner, namely, Radhelal Kavde had taken the vehicle but he

did not return. The petitioner came to know that his vehicle has been

withheld by a villager who was demanding damages for his crops. When the

petitioner refused, the revisioner made a false complaint. The vehicle was

then seized on 11.10.2007 in connection with the commission of Forest

Offence No. 4182 of 2016 for the commission of offences under Section 42

of the Chhattisgarh Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, Sections

5, 15 & 16 of the Chhattisgarh Abhi Vanopaj Niyam, 2001 and under the

provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927. The prescribed authority initiated the

confiscation proceeding and the petitioner pleaded false implication.

Pursuant to the enquiry, the order dated 11.6.2009 was passed, directing

confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. C.G.

19D-0194. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority and

Conservator of Forest was dismissed vide order dated 24.9.2009.

Subsequent to which, the revision preferred before the Additional Sessions

Judge, North Bastar, Kanker has also been dismissed by the impugned

order dated 4.5.2011.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is

bad in law and in clear violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner.

The arguments submitted on the ground raised by the petitioner regarding

which, defence was not given any consideration. The petitioner neither used

his vehicle for transport of any forest produce nor he had connived for

commission such offence regarding which, there is no evidence present at

all, therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the

case of Assistant Forest Conservator and Ors. vs. Sharad Ramchandra

Kale, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 48, in which the order of confiscation of

vehicle was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the authorities

had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his

truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the

provision of the Forest Act, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. It is

further submitted that the present case is similar. Hence, the petitioner is

entitled for relief.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the submissions

made and submits that the impugned order passed is just, proper and lawful.

There is a concurrent finding of all the three Courts below, therefore, it is not

a fit case in which the petitioner has any entitlement for grant of relief.

5. Considered on the submissions. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act,

1927 provides for the seizure of property liable to confiscation and there is a

Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act, 1983, in which Section 52 of the Principal

Act has been substituted. Sub-section 4 of this Act provides that in the

matter of confiscation of any seized property, the authorized officers shall be

required to give some intimation about initiation of proceedings for

confiscation of property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence

on account of which the seizure has been made. Secondly, it would be

required to issue notice in writing to the person from whom the property is

seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorized officer to

have some interest in such property. Thirdly, the Forest Officers shall afford

an opportunity of hearing to such parties interest. Sub-section 5 of amended

Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 provides that no order of

confiscation under Sub-section 3 of Section 52 of any tools, boats, vehicles,

ropes, chains or any other article (other than the 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, 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 precautions had been taken against

use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence. There is

similar provision under Section 15 of the Chhattisgarh Vanopaj (Vyapar

Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Indian

Forest Act, 1927 regarding procedure to be followed is similar as provided

under Section 52(4) of the Amended Provision under the Act, 1927.

6. The key words in these provisions with respect to the defence which

may be raised by a person interest are these that the article was used

without the knowledge or connivance or as the case may be without the

knowledge of the owner or of the servant or agent of such person having

interest.

7. The facts of the case are that information was received by authorized

officer regarding that a vehicle is stuck in the agricultural field which has load

of teak-wood. The Forest Officers arrived on the spot and found the vehicle

bearing registration No. C.G. 19D-0194. The petitioner arrived on the spot

on 10.10.2007 and a search was made. The vehicle and the forest produce

both were seized after registering the forest offence.

8. On perusal of the orders dated 10.10.2007 and 11.6.2009, it is

mentioned that the petitioner had taken only one defence that the vehicle

was stuck in the agricultural filed and the land owner was making a demand

of Rs.12,000/- for his loss. There is no such statement that the vehicle was

used for trnasportation of teak-wood without his knowledge or connivance,

therefore, the order was passed for confiscation of the vehicle mentioned

herein-above. Similar is the view taken by the Appellate Authority in its order

dated 24.9.2009 and in the revisional order of the Additional Sessions Judge

dated 4.5.2011.

9. After perusal of the orders mentioned herein-above, it is found that the

only ground on which the petitioner would have been held entitled for relief

as mentioned in the amended Section 52(4) and Section 15(5) of the

Chhattisgarh Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, was this that the

petitioner should have pleaded and proved that he or his agent both had no

knowledge regarding the illegal transportation of the forest produce and that

both of them had not connived in the commission of such offence.

Therefore, there being no such pleading or proof present, the submission

regarding the entitlement of the petitioner in this petition is of no value,

therefore, I am of this view that this petition is without any substance.

Hence, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi