VISHWANATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, though has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being entertained under Article 227 only for the reason that the order dated 21. 9. 2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur is under challenge wherein the order dated 31. 8. 2015 passed in Appeal No. 02/2015/2016 by the respondent No. 2/Chief Conservator of Forest, Jabalpur has been confirmed. The aforesaid appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forest arose out of the order dated 2. 6. 2014 passed in Case No. 216/17 by the respondent No. 3/Presiding Officer and Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Maharajpur West, District Mandla. Vide the aforesaid order dated 2. 6. 2014 the petitioner's JCB machine has been confiscated by the respondents under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forest Act').

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of a JCB machine bearing Registration No. MP17DA0138. According to the petitioner, he is also a contractor and was awarded a work order on 20. 4. 2012 by the M. P. Rural Road Development Authority for construction of road as also for its maintenance for a period of 5 years. The aforesaid contract was given to the firm owned by the petitioner in the name of M/s A. V. Constructions. The JCB machine owned by the petitioner was used for the purpose of maintenance of road and it was driven by one Guddu Ansari - the driver appointed by the petitioner.

(3.) It is further alleged that on 1. 6. 2014 the Forest Officer, Maharajpur West, at around 8. 30 p. m. found that a JCB machine was illegally excavating soil 4 meters away from the main road Bamar Maldha. On this basis, the JCB machine belonging to the petitioner was seized although the place of seizure is shown as the "main road" and not "jungle". On 10. 7. 2014 a show cause notice regarding confiscation was issued to the petitioner which was duly replied by him on 24. 7. 2014. In the reply, it was pleaded by the petitioner that the JCB machine was driven by his driver at the relevant point of time without his knowledge and the petitioner was unaware that his JCB machine was driven to forest area by his driver.