- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 27.11.2004 passed by the respondent no. 2 in revision case no. 15 of 2004, whereby the Revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.12.2003 ( Annexure -4) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer (respondent 4) in Confiscation Case No. 20 of 2003, under which the petitioner 'svehicle was confiscated, was dismissed. Further challenge has also been made to the order dated 21.6.2004 ( Annexure 5) passed by the collector, Dhanbad ( respondent no.3) whereby the confiscation appeal no. 7 of 2003 filed by the petitioner against the order of confiscation dated 13.12.2003 was dismissed. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is the owner of the Trekker bearing registration no. JH 01C 6169 which was used for commercial purpose for carrying passengers and was entrusted to the driver for the purpose of plying. In the morning on 15.12.2003, the vehicle was intercepted at GT Road by the officials of the Forest Department and 70 pieces of bamboos were found loaded on the vehicle. On the ground that the bamboos were forest produce which was transported on the aforesaid vehicle, for which the driver did not produce any documents or valid permit, the vehicle along with the bamboos were seized and the driver as well as one person who was a passenger of the vehicle was arrested and a criminal proceeding was initiated against them. The petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle, was also cited as an accused and he was also prosecuted for the offences under the Indian Forest Act for commission of theft of the forest produce. It is informed by the petitioner that he had submitted his defence in the criminal proceedings as also in the confiscation proceedings initiated for the purpose of confiscation of his vehicle raising the following grounds : (i) that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle and admittedly at the time of its interception by the forest officials, it was plying on the road carrying passengers and their luggage . (ii) that one of the passengers who was arrested had declared himself to be the owner of the bamboos and had also claimed that the bamboos were felled from his raiyati land and it was not forest produce; (iii) that the petitioner was not aware that the bamboos were loaded on the vehicle , nor had he given any instruction to the driver to transport any forest produce; (iv) that considering the fact that a passenger of vehicle had claimed himself to be owner of bamboos, the driver had bona fidely allowed the passenger to load the bamboos on the seized vehicle and the petitioner had no knowledge whatsoever with regard to the connivance, if any, of the driver under the forest Act .
(3.) PETITIONER 's further contention is that in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner, the driver of his vehicle and also the passenger who claimed to be owner of the bamboos, have been acquitted. It is further stated that in the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner had adduced evidence in support of his defence , but in spite of adducing evidence to prove that the bamboos were not loaded on the vehicle with his connivance or knowledge, the confiscating authority had brushed aside the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner holding the same to be false and misleading merely on the basis of the statement of the Forest Guard that the type of bamboos seized from the petitioner's vehicle were forest produce, grown in the Topchanchi Forest Area. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Confiscating Authority had erred in rejecting the evidence adduced by the petitioner, on the basis of conjecture and surmises and without verifying the statement of the owner of the bamboos that the bamboos were felled from his raiyati land. Referring to the provisions of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Area, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner having discharged his onus of proof that the bamboos were not loaded on the vehicle with his knowledge or connivance, the order of confiscation of the seized vehicle is illegal and without application of judicial mind and could not have been passed. Learned counsel submits further that the petitioner's vehicle has not been released notwithstanding the order for release which was made subject to deposit of rupees five lakhs by the petitioner who has not been able to deposit the amount for release of the vehicle.;