SUKHDEO SINGH BACHCHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Sukhdeo Singh Bachchu is the owner of Tractor No. CG 04/ZG-5388 and Trolley No. CG 04/ZG-5389. His tractor and trolley were seized by the Forest Authorities on 19-4-2008 on the ground that the said vehicles were engaged in illegal transportation of 9 logs of teak amounting to 0.432 cubic meters. On account of above seizure; forest offence No. 408/15 dated 20-4-2008 was registered under Sections 33(1)(a) and 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and proceedings of confiscation of the said vehicles were drawn u/s. 52(3) of the said Act. The Authorized Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer, West Kondagaon, Forest Sub-Division issued show-cause notice to the petitioner for confiscation on 22-4-2008. Reply was filed by the petitioner on 28-4-2008. Thereafter evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded and the petitioner was also called upon to adduce his evidence in rebuttal. The petitioner examined himself on 16-9-2008 and contended that he was the owner of tractor and trolley. On 19-4-2008 his tractor and trolley was kept in the house of driver-Dhannu S/o. Mangal Murya, resident of Jamkotpara, Kondagaon. The driver without his knowledge and permission took the vehicles and ultimately on 20-4-2008, he came to know that the vehicles have been seized by the Forest Authorities.

(2.) The Authorized Officer, on due consideration of the entire material available before him, passed the order of confiscation of the tractor and trolley on 16-12-2008 (Annexure-P/1). The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the said authority on 15-4-2009 (Annexure-P/2), Thereafter the petitioner filed criminal revision No. 13/2009 (Annexure-P/4) before the Sessions Court which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 11-12-2009. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this petition challenging the aforesaid orders passed by the said authorities and has prayed for restoration of possession of his tractor and trolley.

(3.) Mr. Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the driver of the petitioner used his vehicles without his knowledge which was proved on record. He also argued that the petitioner had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution that his vehicles may not be indulged in any illegal activity, but even after that the driver took the vehicles for transportation of certain articles from a marriage place and teak logs were allegedly found in the tractor while it was transporting the said articles. He argued that even his tractor was not engaged by him for transportation of articles from the marriage place. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the vehicles were being used without his knowledge, they were not liable for confiscation u/s. 52(3) of the Forest Act.