STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GHANSHYAM KESHAVPRASAD TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned A.P.P for the State and the learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) According to the case of the petitioner, on 14th April 2000 when the officers of the Forest Department were on patrolling duty, early in the morning at 05.00 a.m, a truck bearing registration No.MH04-S-1559 was seen proceeding in very high speed on a road from village Tulsa to village Konagaon. Though an attempt was made by the officers to stop the truck, the driver on the truck avoided to stop the truck. Ultimately, the officers stopped the truck near village Nehroli. At that time it was found that the truck was carrying 'Khair' wood without permit. After issuing notice to the owner of the truck i.e the respondent herein an order of confiscation was passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Asangaon, Shahpur on 05th September 2000. An appeal was preferred by the respondent against the said order. By the impugned judgment and order dated 13th November 2000 the said appeal has been allowed and truck was ordered to be returned to the respondent.

(3.) The submission of the learned A.G.P appearing for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge has completely ignored the provisions of section 61B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (As amended by Maharashtra Act 7 of 1985). She submitted that the burden was on the respondent to prove to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that the truck was used for carrying the goods without the knowledge or connivance of the respondent himself or his agent and that the respondent had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. She submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was under an erroneous impression that the burden was on the forest department to show that the truck was used for carrying the goods without the knowledge or connivance of the respondent himself or his agent and that the respondent had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the such use. She submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was under an erroneous impression that the burden was on the forest department to prove that the truck was being used for carrying goods without knowledge or connivance of the respondent. She, therefore, submitted that the entire approach of the learned Sessions Judge was erroneous. She stated that on the basis of the impugned order, the custody of the truck has been returned to the respondent.