(1.) PETITIONER claims to be tine owner of the truck bearing registration no B.P.P. 7491. The said truck was seized on 9.11.1994 at Village Bahera, Police Station Amas in the district of Gaya, carrying Khair wood. On the basis of the report given by the chowkidar in relation to the aforesaid incident Amas P.S. Case no. 67 of 1994 was registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and 33/52 of the Forest Act. Fact of the seizure of the truck carrying Khair wood, which is admittedly forest produce was made known to the Divisional Forest Officer and on that basis he initiated a proceeding for confiscation of the truck as provided under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990. Petitioner appeared before the Divisional Forest Officer stating therein that he had purchased the said truck oh hire purchase basis with a further plea that he had no knowledge about the transportation of Khair wood on the truck. The Divisional Forest Officer by its order dated 6.1.1997 directed for confiscation of the truck. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and the District Magistrate, Gaya by order dated 13.12.1999 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid petitioner preferred Rev. Case no.1 of 2000 before the Secretary Environment and Forest Department, who by order dated 18.5.2002 dismissed the revision application.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders petitioner has preferred this application and prays for quashing of the orders of Divisional Forest Officer, District Magistrate and the Secretary.
(3.) MR . Amarnath Singh S.C.8 appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of the provisions made under Section 52 (5) of the Act it is for the owner of the vehicle to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle in question was used without his knowledge and connivance and further he had taken necessary precaution against the use of the vehicle for the commission of the offence. He submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner ever pleaded or proved to the satisfaction of the authority that the truck was used without his knowledge or connivance and he had taken necessary precaution against the use of the truck. He submits that in view of the clear language of section 52 (5) of the Act onus was on the petitioner. In support of his plea he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. V/s. Suresh Kumar, 1997 (9) SCC 647 and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 9 of the judgment which reads as follows: - "A bare reading of sub -section (6) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam quoted hereinabove shows that the burden is on the owner to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that his vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precautions were taken by him against use of his truck for the commission of an offence under this Adhiniyam. During confiscation proceedings, the competent authority recorded the statements of various forest employees including the officers and permitted the respondent to cross -examine them but he failed to avail of the said opportunity. The forest employees when tried to stop the truck, one of the inmates of the truck tried to scare forest employees by firing a shot from firearm and thereafter escaped from the truck to avoid being caught. This would unmistakably show that the truck driver and other inmates were involved in illegal activities forbidden by the Adhiniyam. It also cannot be overlooked that the concealment of 120 logs of teak wood was arranged perfectly by putting tarpaulin over the logs to avoid its detection. These facts were held proved by the Forest Authorities and on these proved facts, the Forest Authorities concluded that the driver of the truck in connivance with the other inmates of the truck was carrying the wooden logs illegally. Under sub section (6) burden is cast upon the owner of the truck to prove that his truck was used for illegal activities without his knowledge and not with his connivance. The statement of the owner of the truck was recorded by the competent authority and the explanation sought to be given by him did not find favour with the said authority. The respondent owner did not produce any other material on record to discharge the burden under sub section (6). If this be so, it cannot be said that I the competent authority and the appellate authority committed any error in coming to the conclusion that respondent owner has failed to satisfy the authorised officer that the illegal activity committed by the driver of the truck was without his knowledge or connivance. Mere ipse dixit of the respondent owner cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to discharge burden under Section 15 (6) of the Adhiniyam. In our opinion the High Court has totally misread and misinterpreted provision of Section 15(6). We, therefore, cannot sustain the reasoning of the High Court and the Sessions Court as regard interpretation of Section 15(6)."