STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. SHANKAR LAL DEWANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 25.5.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ranker, in Criminal Revision No. 6/05, whereby the learned Court below has allowed the revision preferred by respondent No. 1 assailing the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Conservator of Forest under Section 52 -B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short "the Act, 1927"). Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the intervening night of 24/25* October, 2003, vehicle Max Marshal bearing registration No. CG -04 -B/0812 owned by respondent No. 1 was stopped by the forest officials near Forest Check Post - -Pondgaon and upon checking, 34 pieces of teak wood, total 1.129 cubic meter, were found in the said vehicle. It is further case of the forest department that at the relevant time, the vehicle in question was being driven by one Ghanshyam Dewangan, elder brother of respondent No. 1, who upon query could not show any documents in respect of possession of the said wood. Therefore, Forest Offence No. 3766/13 was registered on 25.10.2003 and after completing all the formalities, Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Antagarh passed an order of confiscation of the said vehicle on 19.7.2004 (Annexure P/2). The said order was assailed by respondent No. 1 before Forest Conservator in appeal. However, his appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure P/3). Order dated 26.10.2004 of Forest Conservator was subjected to revision by respondent No. 1 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker and vide impugned order dated 25.5.2005 (Annexure P/1), the Court below allowed the revision setting aside order dated 26.10.2004 passed by Forest Conservator. Hence this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners/State submits that the revisional Court has erred in law while reversing the well reasoned orders passed by the forest authorities. He submits that as per provisions of sub -section (5) of Section 52 of the Act, 1927, burden lies on the owner of the vehicle to prove that he had no knowledge of the vehicle being used in commission of forest offence, there was no connivance between the owner and the driver/servant/agent and that the owner had taken reasonable and necessary precautions against use of the vehicles for commission of any forest offence. He further submits that in the present case, respondent No. 1/owner has not stated in his evidence that he had taken reasonable and necessary precautions while handing over his vehicle to his brother. He submits that even otherwise, as per Section 52(5) of the Act, 1927, the owner is not only required to make such statement that he had taken due care and precautions to prevent any misuse, but is also required to prove the same by leading sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the authorized officer. However, in his cross -examination, respondent No. 1 has categorically stated that he had not given any authority to his brother Ghanshyam/driver of the vehicle for taking the vehicle anywhere and he (driver) used to follow his instructions only.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.