LAXMAN KISAN MUNDHE Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST THANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of Truck No. MTT-3920. He purchased the truck on 8-2-1991 and handed over the truck along with the power of attorney for plying the same for consideration of rent to one Chander Hari Datar. Since said Chander Datar neglected to pay the rent he himself took the truck and started soil transport work at Dahisar Check Naka. His working route was Dahisar Check Naka to Borivali Gorai Khadi. He had engaged the services of one driver called Ramesh Jivane who is staying in Dahisar. The petitioner was staying in Mumbra. Therefore he instructed the driver to park the same in Dahisar Check Naka where he usually ply the truck. On 9-4-1991 he came to know that his truck was detained by the forest officer in connection with some offence allegedly committed by his driver. It was revealed further on enquiry that on 5-4-1991 at about 3. 30 a. m. the truck was proceeding from Parol to Shivsad it was inspected at Mandvi Check Naka, and found carrying forest property i. e. 154 sagwoods allegedly valued at Rs. 79,000/ without any legal permission thereof. The truck and the property was seized under panchanama and the person found in the truck and the driver were arrested. Subsequently, the confiscation proceedings has been taken under section 61 of the Indian Forest Act. In the confiscation proceedings the truck was confiscated.

(2.) IT is averred in the writ petition that against the order of confiscation dated 27-8-1991 he filed a revision on 3-9-91 and the revision has been disposed of without hearing the petitioner on 24-9-91 confirming the order of confiscation. It is in these circumstances the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) I heard the Counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. S. Mohite and the learned A. P. P. Shri Thakur. The confiscation authority though found that there is no direct involvement of the commission of the offence by the petitioner, the authority infers that the offences have been committed with the knowledge of the petitioner. The circumstances that has been stated for inferring the knowledge is that he has employed the driver before 8 days of the commission of the offence and in that circumstances the knowledge was attributed to the petitioner. I do not think the approach of the confiscation authority was correct. The circumstances that the driver is employed only 8 days before the commission of the offence, at any rate, cannot attribute the knowledge of the owner to the commission of the offence. When it is asserted by the petitioner that he had no involvement in the commission of the offence, for the purpose of attributing knowledge of the offence, there must be cogent and sufficient material to come to the conclusion that the offence has been committed with the knowledge of the petitioner. I failed to notice any such materials in this case. In view of this the conclusion arrived at by the authority for confiscating the truck is found to be illegal.