STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. K MUTHUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed at the instance of the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Environment and Forest Department questioning the order of the learned single Judge dated 9.4.2003 made in the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the writ appeal are as follows:

(3.) KEEPING the above in mind, the issue is to be considered. In terms of Section 41 of the Act, when there is a reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber or produce together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence could be seized by the Forest Officer. After the seizure is effected, a notice under Section 49-B of the Act could be issued to the person from whom the seizure is effected stating the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the produce. On receipt of such notice, the owner of the vehicle should prove that he had no knowledge about such transportation. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 49-B, the burden shifts on the owner. A careful perusal of the above said provision would show that such burden could be discharged only by production of evidence either oral or documentary and cannot be understood for a mere explanation of denial.