LAWS(GJH)-2009-4-200

MAHAMMED TAHIR MOHAMMAD PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On April 13, 2009
MAHAMMED TAHIR MOHAMMAD PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by way of this application has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 12. 07. 2004 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Rajpipla [west] in Case No. 18/2003-04, and the judgment and order dated 27. 10. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2004, whereby the said appeal was dismissed.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the applicant is the resident of Bharuch and is engaged in the business of transportation. The applicant had employed one Shri Ratilal Dahyabhai Rathod as a driver for plying his tempo on hire. On 15. 03. 2004, while the driver was returning to Bharuch, the Forest Officers intercepted the said tempo and on inspection found that forest produce was being transported illegally. The Forest Officers seized the forest produce as well as the vehicle in question. Respondent no. 2, after following requisite procedure, issued a show-cause notice dated 27-05-2004 under Section 61b of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, calling upon the applicant and the driver, to explain as to why the vehicle in question should not be confiscated. The applicant and the said driver submitted their written replies on 28. 05. 2004.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the vehicle, alleged to have been used for unauthorized transportation of forest produce, cannot be confiscated unless there is a proof that the use was with the consent or connivance of the owner of the vehicle. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Navinchandra K. Chavda v. Range Forest Officer and Anr. reported in 1993 (1) GLH pg. 948, wherein it has been held that if the owner of the vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the authorized Officer that it was being used for carrying forest produce, without his knowledge or connivance, then no order confiscating the vehicle can be passed under Section 61 of the Indian Forest Act.