BIBI AMNA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner -appellant's vehicle, a truck bearing registration No. UHP - 695, was seized under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, while carrying hard coal from the possession of the driver of the petitioner. In the confiscation proceeding, after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, the Authorized Officer passed the detailed order on 14th March, 2007 and ordered confiscation of the vehicle under section 52(3). The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. The petitioner's said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 3rd October, 2008 and thereafter petitioner's revision was also dismissed by the revisional authority, vide order dated 13th September, 2011. The petitioner, aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, approached this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 6523/2011, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 24th February, 2012 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -appellant, Shri Saibal Mitra, vehemently submitted that it was the burden upon prosecution to prove that the prohibited goods were carried in the petitioner's truck in the knowledge of the petitioner, whereas there is no such allegation in the complaint and therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator & Ors. Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale reported in : 1998 (1) PLJR 21 (SC), all the authorities below as well as learned Single Judge have committed serious error of law in ordering the confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner and in dismissing the appeal, revision and writ of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though sought to read section 52 as amended by the Bihar Act 9 of 1990 containing sub -section (5) in support of his plea yet submitted that it is the burden of the State to prove that the forest produce carried in the vehicle were put and carried in the vehicle in the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sharad Ramchandra Kale (supra).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -appellant also relied upon section 111A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and submitted that where a person is accused of having committed an offence, then certain presumption is required to be drawn only in accordance with section 111A and since the prosecution in this case miserably failed to make out ground for drawing any presumption against the accused and failed to plead and prove the basic ingredients of the commission of offence by the petitioner and failed to impute knowledge of the petitioner, on all these grounds all orders are liable to be set aside.