Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order dated 27.1.2012 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Confiscation Case No. 11 of 2011 by which the trailer and tractor of the petitioner seized in the case alongwith eight pieces of Acacia wood has been confiscated in favour of State and the prayer for release of the seized two vehicles, has been rejected and also the order dated 14.11.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, in Confiscation Case No. 10 of 2012 by which the order passed by the respondent No. 3 has been upheld. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that at the instance of Sub -Inspector of Domchanch Police Station, a case under section 414 of I.P.C. and also under sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act being Domchanch P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011 was instituted against the present petitioner, who is the owner of the said tractor, and the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, on the allegation that after cutting Acacia trees standing on the Raiyati land of village Lakshandih and Bagridih, the same was being transported towards Domchanch and for verifying the same, the informant reached at Bagro -Bagridih road and found the stems of those trees loaded on one Mahindra Tractor and trailer and after seeing the police party, the driver of the tractor fled away whereafter, the tractor alongwith trailer and logs were seized and the instant case was lodged. Later on confiscation proceeding was also initiated bearing No. 11 of 2011. After due investigation, the police finding no complicity of the present petitioner in the said case submitted final form exonerating him from the offences alleged but the charge -sheet was submitted against the driver of the vehicle only. It appears from the record that the petitioner after getting the notices of the confiscation proceeding filed his show -cause that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and the same was given to the driver Shankar Yadav and on the relevant date, cow -dung was being carried on the seized vehicle and after unloading the same, the driver was returning but in the way, the driver went to attend call of nature by stopping his vehicle on road side when some local women, who were carrying eight pieces of Acacia green wood, kept those woods in the seized vehicle but after seeing the police party, they fled away and the said eight pieces of Acaciawoods were recovered by the police.
(2.) MR . Deepak Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, seriously contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the offence alleged and the police after investigation had submitted the final form but even men the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without appreciating the same rejected the prayer for release of the vehicles. It was also submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the seized Acaciawood and the petitioner being owner of the vehicles the Mahindra tractor bearing registration No. BR -47 -1702 and its trailer bearing No. BR -47 -1703 had rightly prayed for their release. Further assailing the impugned orders, learned Counsel submitted that even if the seized vehicle was involved in transportation of illegally cutting forest produce, for that reason, the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, cannot be held responsible, when the Competent Court of criminal jurisdiction has already exonerated him from the alleged offence after due investigation. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, learned Counsel representing the State submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have rightly rejected the prayer for release and confiscated the tractor and trailer in favour of the State.
(3.) IT appears from the record that after investigation, the police submitted the final form against this petitioner, who is the owner of the seized vehicle exonerating him from the offence and the charge -sheet was only submitted against the driver of the vehicle. After initiation of the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner took part in the said proceeding and filed his show -cause relying upon different paragraphs of the case diary collected by the Investigating Officer but the Authorised Officer -cum -Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma vide his order dated 27.1.2012 passed the order for confiscation of the vehicles and Acaciawood in favour of the State. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma but the Appellate Court affirmed the order of Divisional Forest Officer without appreciating the fact that the petitioner has already been exonerated of the charges and the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was used without his knowledge or connivance. For better appreciation of the issue involved in this case, I would like to refer the relevant provisions of section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. Sub -section (5) of section 52, which is relevant, is quoted hereinbelow: "Section 51 - -Seizure and its procedure for the property liable for confiscation - - (i)............... (ii)............... (iii)............... (iv) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub -section (3) unless the authorized officer - - (a) sends an indication about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorized officer to have some interest in such property; (c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in Clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation, and (d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under Clause (b), a hearing on date to be fixed for such purposes. (v) No order of confiscation under sub -section (3) of any tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the forest -produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in Clause (b) of sub -section (4) proves to the satisfaction of Authorized Officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge of connivance or, as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that ail reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest -offence." The aforesaid provision clearly mandates that no confiscation shall be made, if any person as referred in sub -section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that such vehicle was being used without knowledge or connivance of the owner of the vehicle.;