RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Brij Raj Singh learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and Sri A.K. Singh Solanki.
(2.) THIS petition is filed against the order dated 8 -12 -2002 passed by the Up Van Sanrakshak/Pradhikrit Adhikari, Rashtriya Chambal Sanctuary Project, Agra, whereby truck No. UP -84 -2388, Engine No. 692802371486 and Chassis No. 364046359759 was confiscated in favour of the State and the order dated 11 -3 -2003 passed by the Pradhikrit Adhikari/Special Secretary, Van Vibhag, U.P. Shasan in Appeal No. 01/4241 -2003/405 (23)/2003 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is registered owner of the abovementioned truck and there is no other claimant of the truck in dispute. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the truck of the petitioner was seized by the Forest Officer on 6 -8 - 2002 and the Driver of the truck namely Sugreev Singh was arrested by the Forest Officer and he was challaned for the offences punishable under Section 26/52 Ka, Kha and Ga of the Forest Act and Sections 29, 39, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, as amended in the year 1991. It is contended that the allegations of the prosecution is that wood of the forest was loaded on the truck in dispute. Sugreev Singh the driver of the truck was driving the truck in dispute. He was arrested and the truck was taken in custody by the Forest Officer. Subsequently, on 8 -12 -2004 it was confiscated in favour of the State Government. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is bona fide owner of the truck in dispute. He was having no knowledge that the Driver was loading the truck of the wood which was of the forest department. Even the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner was having the knowledge that his truck was used in the abovementioned offence. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate Court also did not record any finding to show that the petitioner was having the knowledge that his truck was used in the commission of the abovementioned offence. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the truck was involved in a very serious offence. It is further contended that, if the truck in dispute is not released in favour of the petitioner it will be damaged, because it will not properly maintained by the detaining authority and the petitioner is ready to comply with the condition imposed by the authority concerned.
(3.) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of the record that it is clear that the petitioner is a bona fide owner of the truck in dispute and at this stage the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner was having knowledge that his truck was used in the commission of the abovementioned offence and the petitioner himself is not accused in the abovementioned case. In such circumstances it will be proper to release the truck in dispute in favour of the petitioner by imposing certain necessary condition, so the Up Van Sarankshak/Pradhikrit Adhikari, Rashtriya Chambal Sanctuary Project, Agra is directed to release the aforementioned truck in favour of the petitioner by imposing certain necessary conditions, which are required by the law. Accordingly, both the abovementioned orders are set aside and the petition is allowed. Petition allowed.;