SUBHASH AGRAWAL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Art. 226/227 of Constitution of India, is to an order dated 25.1.2000, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr. Revision No. 316/98 Annexure P 5. Facts in brief to appreciate the issue involved in the writ, which is essentially under Article 227, need mention.

(2.) PETITIONER is the registered owner of one matador bearing No. MP 14 B 9769. The petitioner had employed one driver Sitaram for plying this vehicle. At times the petitioner used to give this vehicle on hire to one Sharma Travel.

(3.) THE petitioner replied to the show cause and while giving some story in effect, denied the commission of offence. In substance, the case of petitioner in reply was that even if the offence was alleged to have been committed, then the same was not to his knowledge and that he was not at all aware of the same nor it was committed with his connivance or on his instructions. In other words, the petitioner pleaded total innocence and ignorance of the said commission of offence.