SELBESTER KUJUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present Cr.M.P. challenging the order dtd. 21/5/2014 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 97/2013 passed by which the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the order dtd. 20/8/2013 passed in Appeal No. Revenue /117/ Year 2013 by which Appellate Authority and Conservator of Forest, Surguja Forest Circle, Ambikapur has confirmed the order dtd. 18/3/2012 passed in Forest Criminal Case No. 5418/16 by which the learned Competent Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest), Kunkuri has passed order for confiscation of the vehicle Tractor and trolley bearing registration Nos. MP-26-E-6736 and MP-26-E-6737.

(2.) The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that petitioner is the owner of the tractor and trolley bearing registration Nos. MP-26-E- 6736 and MP-26-E-6737 which was being driven by respondent No.2 the driver. It was alleged that on 18/3/2012 while patrolling near Farsabahar Triangle, National Highway Lawakera road the Range Officer, Kunkuri, Range Assistant and guards seized vehicle wherein 29 pieces Sal woods were loaded. The competent authority and Sub- Divisional Forest Officer, Kunkuri registered the case and recorded statement of witnesses namely S.D. Vaishnav, Ranger P.W.-1, Rajesh Choube, Forest Guard, P.W.-2, Virenra Bhagat, driver of Govt. Vehicel, P.W.-3 and Mahesh Ram, Daily Wager P.W.-4. They all supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner examined Rameshwar Ram, D.W.-1 and recorded his own statement as D.W.-2 who have categorically stated that the alleged offence has been committed without knowledge of the owner, he has sent the driver to bring sanitary plates on 18/3/2012 to Kunkuri and thereafter on next day to transport 100 bags of cement from Tapkara to Baluabahar. He was informed about the incident at night by the Range Officer that the respondent No. 2 has been caught and has committed said offence. Learned Competent Authority and Sub-Divisional Forest Officer after appreciating the evidence started proceedings for confiscation of the tractor and trolley under Sec. 52 of the Indian Forest Act and vide order dtd. 25/3/2013 ordered for confiscation of the tractor and the trolley.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Conservator of Forest, Sarguja Circle Ambikapur bearing case No./Revenue/117/Year 2013. The Appellate Authority and Conservator of Forest after appreciating the evidence, materials placed on record, dismissed the said appeal vide order dtd. 20/8/2013 and confirmed the confiscation proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 97/2013 before the revisional Court mainly contending that petitioner was unaware of the fact that the vehicle has been used by the driver of the vehicle for illegal transportation of forest woods. For the mistake committed by the driver, the owner is not responsible for the same as the same has been committed without knowledge of the owner and submitted that order passed by the Competent Authority as well as Appellate Authority may be quashed. The revisional Court, the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Abmikapur vide order dtd. 21/5/2014 has dismissed the revision filed under Sec. 52-B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by recording findings that the petitioner has not taken care by issuing direction to the driver not to involve in the illegal act since driver works on the instruction of owner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take defence of ignorance. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in orders passed by the appellate Court as well as the competent Court and dismissed the revision. Against that order passed by the revisional Court, the present Cr.M.P. under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed.