MURLI MANOHAR RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 27.11.2004 passed by the respondent no. 2 in revision case no. 15 of 2004, whereby the Revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.12.2003 ( Annexure -4) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer (respondent 4) in Confiscation Case No. 20 of 2003, under which the petitioner 'svehicle was confiscated, was dismissed. Further challenge has also been made to the order dated 21.6.2004 ( Annexure 5) passed by the collector, Dhanbad ( respondent no.3) whereby the confiscation appeal no. 7 of 2003 filed by the petitioner against the order of confiscation dated 13.12.2003 was dismissed.

(3.) PETITIONER 's further contention is that in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner, the driver of his vehicle and also the passenger who claimed to be owner of the bamboos, have been acquitted. It is further stated that in the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner had adduced evidence in support of his defence , but in spite of adducing evidence to prove that the bamboos were not loaded on the vehicle with his connivance or knowledge, the confiscating authority had brushed aside the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner holding the same to be false and misleading merely on the basis of the statement of the Forest Guard that the type of bamboos seized from the petitioner's vehicle were forest produce, grown in the Topchanchi Forest Area. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Confiscating Authority had erred in rejecting the evidence adduced by the petitioner, on the basis of conjecture and surmises and without verifying the statement of the owner of the bamboos that the bamboos were felled from his raiyati land. Referring to the provisions of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Area, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner having discharged his onus of proof that the bamboos were not loaded on the vehicle with his knowledge or connivance, the order of confiscation of the seized vehicle is illegal and without application of judicial mind and could not have been passed. Learned counsel submits further that the petitioner's vehicle has not been released notwithstanding the order for release which was made subject to deposit of rupees five lakhs by the petitioner who has not been able to deposit the amount for release of the vehicle.