Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11597 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1643 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohammad Naseem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Environment,Forest And Climate Change,Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Shukla,Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.10.2022 whereby the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was confiscated in exercise of powers under section 52-A (5) of the Forest Act as well as the appellate order dated 08.11.2024 whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, as emerged from the record are that on 02.12.2021 an information was received that certain ivory was being transported on Vehicle No.UP 52-AH 0007 and when intercepted, one of the occupants ran with the black bag and the other two occupants kept on sitting in the car. After chase, the person who had ran away with the black bag, was apprehend and from him, six ivory were recovered. Based upon the said, an FIR was lodged under the Forest Act and the vehicle as well as the ivory was seized. 4. The petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle was not apprehended or arrested in regard to the offence under the Forest Act as he was not found in the Car at the time of apprehension of goods. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle on furnishing surety, thereafter an order came to be passed against the vehicle vide order dated 07.10.2022 whereby the vehicle was confiscated in exercise of the power under section 52-A(5) of the Forest Act. In the said order, it was recorded that on 22.03.2022, the petitioner in his written statement had accepted his guilt and had stated that he was ready to accept the decision of the department. It was also recorded that the petitioner did not furnish any evidence that the vehicle was not being used for transportation of the ivory. In the light of the said, the order of confiscation came to be passed. The counsel for the petitioner argues that thereafter the appeal was preferred, which too has been dismissed on the same grounds 5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner in his written statement and in the application for release of the vehicle had specifically stated that his vehicle was taken by his relative on the pretext that some female member was unwell and had to be taken to the doctor and he was not aware that the vehicle has been used for transporting of the forest produce. In the letter dated 22.03.2022, which has been produced by the Standing Counsel, it was stated that he was not aware that the vehicle would be used for these purposes and he had given the vehicle on the ground that some female member was unwell and had to be taken to the hospital. He however, stated that he accepts his guilt and wants a decision by the department. It was also stated that he was accepted the guilt, if it was found that the vehicle was found to be in any illegal acts. He argues that the petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle, had discharged the burden and was required under section 52-A(5) and no finding as is required has been recorded in the two orders, entitling the confiscation of the vehicle. 6. It is essential to notice the mandate of Section 52-A (5) of the Forest Act, which is as under : 52-A. Procedure on seizure- (1).... 2..... 3.... 4.... (5) No order of confiscation of any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article shall be made if any person referred to in sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that any such tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, as the case may be, and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for the commission of the forest offence. 7. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that no order of confiscation can be passed if a person proves to the satisfaction of the authority that the vehicle was being used without his knowledge or connivance.. 8. In the present case, a specific plea was taken that the vehicle was taken on the pretext that some lady had to be taken to the hospital and thus, the owner had no knowledge or connivance with the offence in question. The authority concerned was required to record a satisfaction in view of the plea taken by the petitioner in his two statements, no such finding has been recorded with the plea taken by the petitioner that the vehicle was being used without his knowledge or connivance. 9. In the absence of any reasoning recorded, rejecting the plea taken by the petitioner, the order of confiscation cannot be sustained. Even the reasoning given in the impugned order in the context of communication dated 22.03.2022, nowhere did the petitioner accept that he was aware that the vehicle was being used was commission of an offence punishable under the Forest Act. In the said communication also, it was stated that the vehicle was taken on the ground that someone was unwell. In the light of the said plea, it was incumbent to reject the plea taken by the petitioner in terms of the requirements under section 52-A (5) of the Forest Act, which is absent in the two orders. 10. In view thereof, the order dated 07.10.2022 confiscating the vehicle cannot be sustained and is quashed. The vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner on his furnishing proof with regard to the ownership of the vehicle. However, the vehicle in question shall not be disposed off if the same is a case property in the criminal case without the leave of the court concerned. 11. The writ petition stands disposed off with the said observations. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench