FOREST RANGE OFFICER Vs. K GOPAL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is the owner of a lorry bearing No. AP 26 T 1990. The petitioner noticed that the said lorry was proceeding from Gollapalli Reserve Forest and after chasing for about five kilometres, he stopped it. On verification, it was found that the lorry was loaded with red sander logs. The driver and the cleaner of the said lorry have fled away in darkness. Proceedings under Section 44 (2-a) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, were initiated before the Authorized Officer, Tirupathi. Through order dated 27. 12. 1995, the Authorised Officer directed confiscation of the lorry as well as red sander logs. Aggrieved by the confiscation of the lorry, the respondent filed A. S. No. 63 of 1996 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. Initially, the appeal was allowed through judgment dated 11. 03. 1998. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 7808 of 1998. The writ petition was allowed on 30. 12. 2001 and the matter was remanded to the appellate Court for fresh consideration and disposal, particularly, with reference to the evidence as to the lack of alleged knowledge on the part of the respondent. After the remand, the appellate Court allowed the appeal through judgment dated 04. 03. 2002. Hence the writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED Government Pleader for Forests submits that admittedly, the lorry was loaded with red sander logs and could be stopped only after long chase and heavy burden rested upon the respondent to prove that he did not have the knowledge of the lorry having been used for transporting the contraband. She contends that the plea as to the alleged stealing of lorry was self- contradictory and the respondent failed to substantiate it. According to the learned Government Pleader, the appellate Court proceeded on incorrect principles of law and that the judgment under challenge cannot be sustained.

(3.) IT is matter of record that the lorry was found to have been loaded with red sander logs. The driver and the cleaner of the lorry fled away and thereby, the manner in which the wood came to be smuggled could not be elicited. The lorry, together with the loaded logs of red sander was seized. The respondent did not claim ownership of the red sander logs. However, since the lorry was utilized in transporting the same, it was liable to be confiscated. The respondent could have been riddled of this, if only the lorry was utilised for that purpose without his knowledge, and in spite of his precautions. Obviously, it is a negative fact and proof thereof has its own limitations. The only way is to verify as to whether the respondent has taken necessary precautions to ensure that the vehicle is not put to illegal use. Another aspect is to examine his conduct at the relevant point of time, which must disclose that he cannot be expected to be having knowledge about the factum of the vehicle being put to illegal activities.