- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Eleard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Mathur, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quasning the judg ment and order dated 5th January, 2006 passed by respondent No. 3 confiscating the Truck No. U. P. 78-B 0047 of the petitioner and the order dated 4th September, 2006 passed by the State of U. P. dismissing the appeal of the peti tioner. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; officials of the Forest Department intercepted the aforesaid truck on 9th December, 2004 at 4. 00 a. m. , which was loaded with timber of Seesarn and Babool trees. One Lallu Prasad Shukla, who claim to be the owner of the trees and the driver of the truck were found in the truck. The timber and the vehicle both were seized and seizure memo was sent by the officials of the Forest Department to respon dent No. 3. A range case being Range Case No. 29 of 2004- 05 was registered un der section 26 of the Forest Act, 1927. The petitioner is the owner of the truck, who made an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who directed release of the truck in favour of the petitioner. The Forest Department filed a criminal revision challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in which the revisional Court stayed the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner subsequently appeared before respondent No. 3 and filed his objection claiming release of the truck. The petitioner in his objection claimed that he was given his truck to Lallu Prasad Shukla on hire for transporting trees be longing to his own field. Before the respondent No. 3 objection as well as affi davit was filed by the petitioner. One G. C. Tripathi, Forest Range Officer and one Ram Pyare, Forest Inspector appeared before respondent No. 3 as P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. The respondent No. 3 passed an order confiscating the truck under sec tion 52-A of the Forest Act, 1927 as amended by U. P. Amendment. The peti tioner filed an appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed by the State U. P. Challenging the aforesaid orders, present writ petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders, contended that petitioner's case before respondent No. 3 was that petitioner,, who is the owner of the truck has nothing to do with the transportation of timbers in the truck and he has given the truck on hire to Lallu Prasad Shukla for transport ing the trees belonging to his own field. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fur ther contended that there was no evidence led before the respondent No. 3 to es tablish that there was any accomplicity of the petitioner in the incident. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Arvind Kumar Dube v. State of U. P. and others 2005 (3) AWC 2970.
(3.) LEARNED standing Counsel, refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that orders have rightly been passed by respon dent No. 3 confiscating the truck since it was involved in transportation of for est produce and it was loaded in the truck belonging to the forest area. LEARNED standing Counsel has placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Swaropchandra AIR 1997 SC 301. and State of Karnataka v. K. A. Kunchindammed AIR 2002 SC 1875. I have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;