PRAKASH RAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner Prakash Rai has challenged order dated 8-4-2002 passed by the respondent No. 3 Deputy Forest Officer (Annexure P-l) confiscating dumber bearing No. UDT 5934 as carrying; contraband under the Indian Forest Act, he has also challenged Annexure P-3, dated 14-2-2001 passed in Appeal No. 741/2000 by respondent No. 2 Conservator of Forest and order dated 29-12-2001 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Cr. R. No. 197/2001.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 10-12-1999 the respondents seized Dumper No. UTD 5934 containing sand and 10 bags of teak wood of 1. 391 sq. meter hidden under the sand. The driver of the dumber was one Ratanlal and after completing the investigation, the forest authorities registered offence under the Forest Act and confiscated the vehicle vide order dated 8-4-2000 (Annexure P-1) under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with M. P. Amendment Act, 1983. The Appellate Authority also upheld the order vide Annexure P-3, dated 14-2-2001 and the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur vide Annexure P-4 on 29-12-2001 and hence the present petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the driver of the vehicle Ratanlal respondent No. 4 was arrested with Anil the Supervisor, Bandu Chowdhri the Cleaner, Hallu Lodhi, Pappu Dhimar. Challan was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur on 28-12-1999. That the Divisional Forest Officer examined the witnesses as well as the petitioner Prakash Rai who stated that as owner his vehicle was only sent for the transportation of sand whereas the accused persons had lifted the prohibited forest produce that is teak wood and he was not in any way concerned with the said act as it was done on the instance of Anil the Supervisor, who had already admitted to the theft with the help of Hallu Lodhi and also deposed that the owner was not involved in it in any manner. The witnesses examined by the prosecution also did not implicate the petitioner/owner of the vehicle in any manner whereas the Enquiry Officer in his report (Annexure P-1) has clearly exonerated the petitioner/owner in Par a "ra" of the enquiry report despite which order of confiscation of the dumper was passed by the Competent Authority. In appeal, the Appellate Authority also rejected the same and did not release the vehicle. On filing of revision the same was dismissed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur on the ground that the master must have knowledge of the activities of the servant and the offence must have been committed with the tacit consent of the owner.