(1.) This revision is directed agianst the order dated 30.3.2000 of Sessions Judge, Bharuch, whereby he has allowed the appeal of the respondent of this revision and quashed the order of the forest authoirty in Case No.133 of 1999 confiscating truck NO.GJ-16-T-8387. Shri K.L. Pujari, learned APP, and Mr Y.M. Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondent, have been heard.
(2.) An appeal was preferred before the learned Sessins Judge under Section 61(1)(d) of the Indian Forest Act against the order of confiscation passed by the forest authorities. The brief facts are that Truck No.GJ-16-T-8387 owned by the respondent no.1 and driven by his brother, respondent no.2, was intercepted for carrying prohibited forest wood, namely, wood of Kher trees. The persons who were to transport the wood fled away from the scene of occurrence and one person was interrogated who told that he was apointed there to supervise the work. His name was Mustaq. His confessional statement was recorded wherein the names of four persons including two respondents and Mustaq and Husseinbhai came to light. The truck remained in the custody of forest authorities. The respondent moved this High Court for a direction to the forest authorities for interim custody of the truck being given to them. This Court by order dated 19.8.1999 directed the State of Gujarat and the respodnent no.2 to dispose of the application of the respondents for releasing the said truck and for giving the same in their interim custody. In compliance of this direction of this Court application for interim custody was moved before the authority. That application was rejected. Simultaneously order of confiscation of the aforesaid truck was passed by the forest authorities. It is against this order of confiscation that the present Revision has been filed inasmuch as the order of confiscation was set aside by the appellate authority, namely, the lower court.
(3.) The judgement of the lower Court has been examined. The lower appellate Court found that the order of confiscation cannot be sustained on two grounds. The first was technical ground, namely, no notice of porposed action for confiscation was given to the respondents by the forest authorities. In the absence of such notice and affording opportunity to the respondents to explain and substantiate their objections to the proposed action order for confiscation could not legally be passed. Secondly, on merits also the learned Sessions Judge found that the order of confiscation was bad in law because respondent no.1 being the owner of the vehicle had no knowledge that his vehicle which was being driven by respondent no.2 was to be utilised for illegal purposes, namely, for carrying prohibited forest wood. On these grounds the order of confiscation was quashed.