P C POCKER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the owner of a lorry, in which his driver was found on 15-8-1983 at 4 P.M. transporting 37 logs of Silver Oak in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act 1882 and the Timber Transit Rules 1968 framed thereunder, and is directed against the order of confiscation of the vehicle passed by the trial Court under S. 43 of the Act, confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court.

(2.) Accused Panneerselvam was found by P.W. 1 the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Coonoor, to be transporting in lorry bearing registration No. TNE-3525 belonging to the petitioner herein, 37 logs of Silver Oak in the Kilakombai Kawal - Coonoor road. The accused was tried for offences under S. 35-A read with S. 35-B of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3(1) and Rule 4.B of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The lorry used for the commission of the offence and which was marked as M.O. 1 was ordered to be confiscated. The petitioner filed C.A. 34/84 under S. 343, Cr.P.C., challenging the order of confiscation. The accused also filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Uthangamandalam, challenging his conviction. Both the appeals were dismissed. The accused filed a revision in this Court which was also dismissed. The conviction has become final. Aggrieved with the dismissal of C.A. 34/84, the petitioner filed this revision.

(3.) Thiru Susindran, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was not an accused in the case and no opportunity had been given to him before his lorry was ordered to be confiscated and this was in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel urged that the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge for dismissing the appeal namely that confiscation of the vehicle was mandatory on a plain reading of S. 43 of the Act, is contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mam and Company v. Forest Range Officer, 1967 MLJ (Crl) 268 and that if the petitioner had been given an opportunity, he would have satisfied the court that the offence was committed by his driver without his knowledge or connivance. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the matter must be remanded to the trial court with a direction to hold an enquiry before passing orders under S. 43 of the Act.