INDERDEV GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by IIIrd Additional Session judge, Ambikapur in criminal Revision No. 67/2007 whereby whereunder the petitioner's revision has been dismissed. As per prosecution case, petitioner is the owner of confiscated vehicle i.e. Mahindra & Mahindra pick-up van. On 26.11.2004 at about 7 pm above vehicle was intercepted by the forest officials. The said vehicle was found involved in illegal transporting of forest produce (timber). Since the driver and the persons sitting in the vehicle could not produce valid document for transportation of forest produce, the vehicle was seized and forest offence was registered by the prescribed Authority i.e. sub Divisional Forest officer, Pathalgaon. After issuing show-cause notice and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the prescribed authority vide its order dated 9.8.2005 confiscated the vehicle in question in favour of the Government. Against the above order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Conservation of forest, Ambikapur, Sarguja. The conservation of forest vide its order dated 16.8.2005 dismissed the appeal and vide impugned order the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

(2.) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: the vehicle in question was given on hire by the petitioner to one Devendra Kumar for transportation Of old furniture. Petitioner also produced him as his witness wherein he has deposed the he was transporting old furniture, therefore, petitioner has proved to the satisfaction of authorized officer that the vehicle in question was used in illegal transportation of forest produce without his knowledge or connivance and, therefore, all the courts below have illegally passed and affirmed the order of confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Arun Sao, learned Govt. Advocate for the state supported the order impugned and would submit: prescribed authority, appellate authority and revisional authority have concurrently recorded a finding that the vehicle in question was involved in illegal transportation of forest produce [timber]. He would further submit that for the reasons best known to him, petitioner did not examine himself to prove his defence and, therefore, the petition being sans merit deserves to be dismissed.