- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner appellant's vehicle, a truck bearing registration no.UHP - 695, was seized under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, while carrying hard coal from the possession of the driver of the petitioner. In the confication proceeding, after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, the Authorized Officer passed the detailed order on 14th March, 2007 and ordered confiscation of the vehicle under section 52(3). The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. The petitioner's said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 3rd October, 2008 and thereafter petitioner's revision was also dismissed by the revisional authority, vide order dated 13th September, 2011. The petitioner, aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, approached this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P (C) No.6523/2011, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 24th February, 2012 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant, Shri Saibal Mitra, vehemently submitted that it was the burden upon prosecution to prove that the prohibited goods were carried in the petitioner's truck in the knowledge of the petitioner, whereas there is no such allegation in the complaint and therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator & Ors. Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale reported in 1998(1) PLJR 21 (SC), all the authorities below as well as learned Single Judge have committed serious error of law in ordering the confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner and in dismissing the appeal, revision and writ of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though sought to read section 52 as amended by the Bihar Act 9 of 1990 containing sub -section (5) in support of his plea yet submitted that it is the burden of the State to prove that the forest produce carried in the vehicle were put and carried in the vehicle in the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sharad Ramchandra Kale (supra).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner appellant further vehemently submitted that the coal in question, which is admittedly though a mineral being a commodity lying as mineral under the land, does not fall under the definition of forest produce because it is not the allegation of the prosecution that such coal was brought from forest. In that situation, if the driver of the vehicle has put any coal in the petitioner's vehicle, then firstly it was without knowledge of the petitioner and secondly there is no allegation that the said mineral was brought from the forest. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant also relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Satrughan Singhal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2009(2) AIR Jhar R 986, wherein this Court has held that the knowledge cannot be inferred on mere assumption in a situation where specific case of the prosecution was that the prohibited articles were taken into the truck by the driver when he was on way to his destination.;