S. SADIQ Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DCF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 21-1-2010 passed by the Fast Track and Additional MACT, Bhadravathi in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2006 whereby, the order dated 15-2-2006 passed by the first respondent has been affirmed. The brief facts are that the vehicle bearing No. K-A-06-9385 is a lorry which belongs to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is stated to have intercepted the said vehicle along with a forest guard on 23-8-2006, since the said lorry was unauthorisedly carrying 200 bunches of bamboo sticks. In that regard, a case in F.O.C. No. 16/2003-04 was registered under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The procedure in that regard is also contemplated under Section 71-B of the Act. The first respondent who is the Authorised Officer under the Act, has by the order dated 15-2-2006, arrived at the conclusion that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, being involved in forest offences is established and in that regard, the confiscated forest produce as well as the vehicle belonging to the petitioner has been forfeited to the Government. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has preferred an appeal before the Court below. The Court below has affirmed the said order. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is assailing both the said orders in this petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while strenuously seeking to assail both the said orders, would contend that the first respondent as well as the Court below were not justified in its conclusion. It is contended that no cases have been registered against the inmates of the vehicle and the statements have not been recorded. The first respondent as well as the Court below have sought to take note of the allegations made against the petitioner which has not been established. It is contended that the petitioner had provided explanation to the effect that he was not involved nor was the offence committed with his knowledge. In that view, apart from examining himself, the petitioner had also examined the owner of the transport company, with whom the lorry had been lodged by the petitioner for the purpose of use, when he was away at Bangalore. In that view, it is contended that when such a reasonable explanation had been put forth by the petitioner, the burden to the said extent had been discharged by the petitioner and therefore the Court below should have taken note of these aspects and should have arrived at a proper conclusion. It is therefore contended that when such action of forfeiting the vehicle belonging to the petitioner is being ordered, the evidence should have been properly analysed and the benefits should have been granted to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate, after referring to the very same evidence which has been tendered before the Court below and the findings rendered by the first respondent as also the Court below; with reference to the objection statement filed before this Court, would contend that keeping in view the nature of the provision contained in the Karnataka Forest Act and that the burden is required to be discharged by the parties, the Forest Officer as well as the Court below were justified in their conclusion. It is contended that the fact that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was used for the forest offence cannot be in dispute. If that be the position, the explanation adverted to by the petitioner was insufficient; and in such circumstance, the first respondent as well as the Court below were justified and the orders does not call for interference.