DEVKINANDAN SHARMA Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 11/05/11 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Ujjain in Cr.R. No. 69/11 whereby order of confiscation of Tavera Car bearing registration No. MP/04-HB/1946 was maintained, present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of Tavera Car bearing registration No. MP/04-HB/1946. The offending vehicle was seized by the respondents on 23/02/09 as it was transporting 154 Kg. piece of sandalwood and the case was registered at crime No. 39/09 for an offence under Section 27/41 of Forest Act and under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Show cause notice was give to the petitioner to the effect that why the offending vehicle should not be confiscated, of which reply was submitted by the petitioner. After holding summary enquiry DFO, Dewas vide order dated 15/02/10 passed an order whereby it was directed that the offending car be confiscated, against which an appeal was filed before Chief Conservator of Forest, which was dismissed on 27/01/11, against which revision petition was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned orders passed by the leaned Court below and Authorities are illegal, incorrect and deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that right from beginning case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner of the offending car and the same has been purchased by the petitioner after obtaining loan from HDFC Bank. It is submitted that Shiva Parmar was the driver of the petitioner. It is submitted that on 19/02/09 there was a marriage of the niece of the petitioner, which was solemnized at Somesh Gardan, Dhar Road, Indore. It was alleged that maternal uncle of the petitioner came to attend the marriage and on 22/02/09 the offending vehicle was sent to Bhopal for dropping the maternal uncle of the petitioner. It is submitted that when the offending car was returning from Bhopal, at that time driver of the offending vehicle allowed the fare paying passengers to travel in the car. It is submitted that at that time offending car was seized by the police and after returning to Sonkattch petitioner came to know that the passengers were transporting Sandalwood illegally. It is submitted that Shiva Parmar allowed the passengers to travel in the offending vehicle in greed of fare, for which there was no consent of the petitioner and also the petitioner was having no knowledge about it. It is submitted that this fact was found proved in the enquiry conducted by the respondents that there is no evidence to the effect that the alleged offence was committed by Shiva Parmar with the consent and within the knowledge of the petitioner, but inspite of that learned Court below and also DFO and Appellate Authority illegally passed the orders of confiscation. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below and the authorities be quashed.