STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SUHAS GULABRAO HASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is for challenging the order of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 1991. As per the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer on 27th May, 1991 confiscating the truck bearing No. M.T.S. 1419 belonging to the respondent and directed to retain the said truck with the respondent. The allegation of the Forest Officer against the respondent was that on 25th March, 1991 at about 1.30 a.m.the truck bearing No. M.T.S. 1419 belonging to the respondent was chased by the Forest Officer suspecting that forest produce was being illegally carried by that truck. The truck was driven by Baban s/o. Jagannath Jadhav. When the truck was being chased by the Forest Officer, the driver of the truck left this truck on the road at the distance of 1 km from Karanjali and disappeared from the spot. Subsequently, on inspection of the truck, it was found that Teak wood was loaded in the truck without permit and without hammering marks. Subsequently the driver was traced out and owner of the land was identified. Both were questioned and their statements were recorded. The truck was seized under the provisions of Sec. 152 of Indian Forests Act and a show cause notice was issued to the driver and the respondent under Section 10(a)(1) of the Indian Forests Act. After obtaining their reply and after completing the enquiry, the truck No. M.T.S. 1419 was ordered to be confiscated by the Authorised Officer by his order dated 27th May, 1991. Aggrieved by this order, respondent filed appeal before 4th Additional Sessions Judge, under sec. 61(d) of the Indian Forest Act. The Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order. Against that order the State filed this writ petition.

(2.) NEITHER A.P.P. nor the respondents counsel represented. I perused the appellate Court order and the pleadings in the writ petition. The main contention of the respondent before the appellate authority was that he had no knowledge about the loading of the teak wood in the truck. The driver Baban was engaged only for loading the road roller on that particular date for transporting the same to Harsul. After unloading the road roller the truck was supposed to come back. Since the truck has not came back, the respondent became alert and made a complaint before the police that the truck was missing. The Appellant Authority found this conduct of the respondent show that there was no knowledge to him about the misusing of the truck by the driver. The Appellate Authority also taken a note of the fact that when the Forest Officer filed complaint, the owners name has not been mentioned in that. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the Officer has not established any connection between the appellant and the seized property and found that the transporting of teak wood in the truck on 25.03.1991 was without knowledge of the respondent. The appellate authority also relied upon the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Versus Rajendra Hilal Patil and others 1989 (1) Bombay C.R. page 287 and C.N. Hasankhan Versus Government of Mysore, 1952. Cr.L.J. page 701 wherein it has been held that no confiscation order can be passed unless it is established that the offence is committed with the consent of the owner of the Vehicle.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the writ petition fail and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule discharged accordingly. Interim relief, stands vacated.