SHESHMAL SURANA Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of a confiscation order passed by the Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Gidam, Dantewada, Bastar District, the 2nd respondent herein under sub -section (3) of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the forest -offence. The only defence put -forth by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent against the proposed confiscation of the motor vehicle and the goods found therein was that the motor vehicle was used by his driver without his notice and knowledge and he was in no way connived with his driver or anyone else in committing the forest -offence. This plea was considered by the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 01 -03 -2004, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Conservator of Forest, Jagdalpur, the 3rd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent dismissed the appeal by his order dated 27 -04 -2005. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Court, Jagdalpur. The Sessions Court dismissed his revision on the ground of limitation by its order dated 04 -02 -2006. Hence, this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of the Court to sub -Section (5) of the Section 52 of the Act would contend that the forest -offence was committed by his driver by using motor vehicle owned by him without his knowledge, and since the petitioner did not connive with the driver or anyone else in the commission of the forest -offence, the exclusionary clause enacted in sub -Section (5) of Section 52 of the Act is attracted and, therefore, the 2nd respondent ought not to have confiscated the motor vehicle and the goods. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the Judgement of a learned Single Judge of M.P. High Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma,, 1991 (1) MPWN 66

(2.) I do not find any merit in the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Sub -Section (5) of Section 52 of the Act reads as follows: