SARDANAND I KARINDI Vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order of confiscation made by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sagar Division and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Cr. M/s. Appeal No. 181.

(2.) It is stated, on the night intervening 31.3.1981 and 1.4.1981, when the Range Forest Officer alongwith his subordinates was going on patrol duty, he found the matador van bearing No. CNW 55 going towards Anavatti on Siralkoppa - Anavatti Road and when the same was stopped. it was found to contain 61 sandal wood billets and 98 root pieces of sandal wood. Further, it is stated, when the vehicle was stopped, come present in the van made their escape good and Ashoka was callght red handed. Accordingly a report was made to the Court as also the respondent -I who issued a show cause notice to the petitioner regarding confiscation of the vehicle and having made the order regarding confiscation, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge, in appeal. The learned Sessions Judge having confirmed the order of confiscation made by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has approached this court.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that on 31-3-1981, in the evening, one Kashappa represented him that one sick person had to be removed from Shikaripur to Hospital at Hubli and out of compassion he gave the vehicle to Kashappa, who had to make his own arrangement regarding driver and his own driver being not present he sent his brother Ashoka with the said Kashappa and Kashappa had misused the vehicle for transportation of sandal wood pieces and without his knowledge and connivance. Ashoka also filed a statement before the Authorised Officer explaining the circumstances under which he had to go with the vehicle. The Authorised Officer recorded the statement of the petitioner who reiterated the same explanation offered in his application, But the Authorised Officer disbelieved the same on the ground that Kashappa was a fictitious person and the explanation given was not acceptable. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal dismissed the same confirming the order of confiscation made by the Authorised Officer.