RENU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ including the writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.3.2000 passed by the Revisional Authority in Case No. 649/1996 whereby and where under the order passed on 6.11.1996 by the District Magistrate, Nawadah regarding the confiscation of the vehicle having registration no. BRO 8501 belonging to the husband of the petitioner has been set aside and the vehicle has been ordered to be confiscated.

(2.) THE husband of the petitioner, Madan Mohan Prasad is admittedly the owner of the truck bearing registration no. BRO 8501. On 27.1.1996 the Officer -in -charge of Rajauli Police Station found the truck lying without driver and khalasi having loaded with khair wood. A case was registered against the driver and the khalasi as no valid papers could be shown during the course of investigation regarding such khair wood. The case was registered under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 33/41 of the Indian Forest Act. On the basis of such registering of a criminal case, the truck along with its loaded khair wood had been seized. A confiscation proceeding also started before the District Forest Officer in which confiscation order was passed by the District Forest Officer. The owner of the vehicle could never appear before the authorities as he was bed ridden and ailing for a long time and his vehicle was being managad by his wife petitioner, Renu Kumari. For and on behalf of her husband, she preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Nawadah as provided under the statute against the order of confiscation passed by the District Forest Officer. That appeal was registered as Misc. Case No. 263M/1996. The District Magistrate considered the whole history of the case including the reports of the officer -in -charge and the Superintendent of Police and held that nowhere it could be found that the owner of the vehicle, that is, the husband of the petitioner was in any way involved with the alleged offence nor it could be found that he had ever any knowledge about such illegal act being committed in his vehicle. It was verified by the police officials that the owner of the vehicle, that is, the husband of the petitioner was in bed for long time as he was suffering from various diseases and as such there was no scope for him for any connivance or having any knowledge about the offence being committed. In that way, the husband of the petitioner was never made an accused in the case. Learned District Magistrate considered the provisions of Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act and Section 52(5) of the same Act as per the Bihar Amendment and it was held that the present case does not fall within the proviso (5) of Section 52 of the Bihar Amendment of the Indian Forest Act. Hence, the confiscation order was set aside. The District Forest Officer then preferred a Revision before the Secretary, Forest and vide Annexure -2 the said Revision was disposed of on 24.3.2000. The revisional authority held that only because the owner of the vehicle was not present at the scene of the occurrence, it cannot be said that he had no knowledge or any connivance with the offence being committed. It must be mentioned here that the police officials after investigation did not find the owner of the vehicle to have connivance and as such he was never made an accused but the revisional authority had overcome said report of the police officials having no materials before it to the contrary. The reference of Jagjit Singh 's case in Cr. W. J. C. No. 358 of 1995 can have no bearing in the present circumstances of the case. When on an enquiry it could be found that the owner of the vehicle was bed ridden for a long years and the vehicle was being managed by his wife and that there was no connivance or knowledge of the owner of the vehicle regarding the alleged offence then definitely sub -section (5) of Section 52 of the Bihar Amendment of the Indian Forest Act does not come to play. Reference may be made to this effect in Apex Court judgment as reported in (1993)1 PLJR (SC)21 (Assistant Forest Conservator vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale. When there are no records or any inkling of materials regarding knowledge of the owner of the vehicle regarding the offence, then definitely the confiscation is bad and the District Magistrate had rightly decided the matter in its proper perspective.