MUKTESHWAR MAHTO Vs. RAM AUTAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the writ petition.

(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.03.2004 passed in Confiscation Case No. 30 of 2003, by . the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad and the order dated 25.07.2005 passed by the Collector, Dhanbad in Confiscation (Forest) Appeal No. 8 of 2004 and also for release of the tractor No. JH 11A 8538 and trailer No. JH 11A 8539 after proper verification of the petitioners ownership.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Divisional Forest Officer as well as the Collector acted arbitrarily and illegally and have wrongly held the petitioners vehicle liable for the consequences of violating the law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that since there is no allegation of involvement of the petitioner, confiscation of his vehicle has no justification. He placed reliance on a decision in Laxman Kisan Mundhe v. Conservator of Forest reported in 1999 Cri. L.J. 553, wherein it has been held by the Bombay High Court that where there is no direct involvement of truck owner in commission of offence knowledge cannot be attributed to him and the order of confiscation is not justified.