2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 29 of 2013 Mohan Nayak S/o R.M. Nayak Aged About 44 Years D.N.K. Colony, Kondagaon C.G., Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Thru District Magistrate, North Bastar, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Forest Range Officer Dahikonga, Tah.And Distt. Kondagaon (C.G.) 3 - Asstt. Forest Range Office, Bade Kanera, Tah. And Distt. Kondagaon (C.G.) 4 - Conservator Of Forest And Appellate Authority North Bastar, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shashikant Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondents / State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 01/12/2025 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.11.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, whereby, criminal revision filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner in the instant petition, are that the petitioner is a registered owner of Scorpio Vehicle bearing registration No CG-17-D 1474 (for short, the offending vehicle'). On 1.12.2010 at night, offending vehicle was found carrying 15 number of wooden planks each having diameter of 0.227 cubic meter. It was seized by Assistant Range officer, Badekanera from one Johan Netam and the proceeding under Section ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.09 12:24:25 +0530 -2- 41 (1), Rule 3 of the Forest Act, 1927 and Section 13 & 18 of C.G. Abhiwahan Vanopaj Niyam, 2001 and Section 3 of Vinirdist Vanopaj Adhiniyam, 1969 was initiated by Prescribed Officer ie. Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, East Kondagaon. After recording evidence of the necessary persons, vide its order dated 17.6.2011 filed as Annexure P-3, the offending vehicle was directed to be confiscated under Section 52 (3) of the Forest Act. Against which, the petitioner preferred first appeal before Forest Conservator , which is an Appellate Authority, Kanker Division, which was registered as Appeal No. 157, dated 2.7.2011. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate Authority vide its order dated 4.1.2012 (Annexure P-2), by affirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Challenging the same, a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, which also stood dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.11.2012, which led to filing of instant petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is a registered owner of the offending vehicle, yet, the same was given on hire to one Johan Netam. Written agreement to that effect was also executed between them on 13.10.2010. The recital of the agreement stipulates that offending vehicle was only to be used by said Johan Netam for the purpose of pick & drop of school children and family members only and it would not be used for any illegal work nor would it be allowed for transportation of any goods, which are prohibited by the State or the Central Government. He submits that the petitioner has taken due care & caution to see that no offence is committed under the Forest Act or C.G., that of Abhiwahan Vanopaj Niyam, 2001 or that of Section 5(1) & 5(3) of Vinirdist Vanopaj Adhiniyam, 1969 is committed by any person using that vehicle. Apart from this, due care has been taken and he was not aware as to whether the vehicle was being used for the purpose of transportation of prohibited goods in this case wooden planks of Beeja Wood. He would further submit -3- that as the petitioner has satisfied the condition precedent of Section15(6) of the Act of 1969 the vehicle was being used for transporting the wooden plank of Beeja without his knowledge and connivance, and he has taken all reasonable precautions. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge may be set aside. 4. Learned Counsel for the State opposing the submissions, submits that admittedly, the offending vehicle of the petitioner was carrying 15 planks of Beeja which is without any valid documents, therefore, the vehicle along with the wooden plank was seized. The petitioner was also given opportunity of hearing and to submit its case. Evidence of the witnesses have also been recorded but it has not been prove that the petitioner was unable to take shelter under Section 15(6) of the Act of 1969. The alleged agreement was executed on 13/10/2010 and seizure was made on 01/12/2010, the Prescribed Officer, Appellate Authority and the learned Sessions Judge have categorical dealt with the submissions and gave categorical finding against the petitioner. The finding so recorded by the above state authorities does not require any interference as it is based on due appreciation of material evidence on record. Therefore, the writ petition deserve to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with rapt attention. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a registered owner of the Scorpio Vehicle No. CG-17-D-1474. It is also not been disputed that an agreement of hire was executed between the petitioner and one Johan Netam on 13/10/2010. From the record, it appears that 15 wooden planks of Beeja have been transported in the said vehicle. The wooden planks and vehicle were seized from Johan Netam. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was given proper opportunity to present his case before the Prescribed Officer. Statement of the witnesses were also recorded. The argument of State -4- counsel that as the petitioner was unable to prove the fact that the transportation of said 15 wooden plank of beeja was being done without his knowledge and consent or connivance and that he has taken all reasonable and necessary precaution to see that no such transportation takes place, therefore, confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle cannot be done. In order to appreciate the submission here-in-above, the relevant provision of Section 15 (6) of the Act of 1969 is quoted here in below:- “6. No order of confiscation under sub-section (4) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other articles (other than specified forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) o sub-section (5) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of objects aforesaid for commission of an offence under this Act.” 7. In this context, it would be necessary to see the statement of the petitioner recorded before the confiscation proceeding by the prescribed officer which culminated into the passing of the order of confiscation which finds place in the impugned order of confiscation in which petitioner has stated that he had entered into the agreement with Johan Netam which has been placed on record. He has further stated that he was not aware about the incident. Johan Netam from whom the wooden planks was seized has also been examined before the prescribed officer. He has also admitted that the said vehicle was -5- given on hire at Rs.15,000/- per month by the petitioner. From the statements of these witnesses, it is quite apparent that the vehicle under the hire agreement between the petitioner and one Johan Netam. The agreement was also placed on record before the prescribed officer. Therefore, it is essential to see the conditions of the agreement. Agreement is filed as Annexure-4, paragraph-4 of which indicates that the said vehicle was to be used by Johan Netam for transportation of school children and the family members. It also reflects that no illegal goods would be transported in the said vehicle which has been prohibited by State Government or the Central Government. The cumulative assessment of the two witnesses as well as the documents appended with the petition had and the rent agreement, it appears that the petitioner has cautioned Johan Netam not to use the vehicle for the purpose of transportation of any goods which have been prohibited by Central Government. Reliance has been placed in case of State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs. Rakesh Maheshwari W.P.(Cr.) No. 10 of 2014 passed by this Court where this Court relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 1017 and State of M.P. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma, 1991 (I) MPWN (66) dismissed the appeal of the State Government and affirmed the finding of the Revisonal Authority, stating that the respondent therein has discharged his burden and proved that vehicle was being used in the connivance with the driver Ashish Kumar Jain and other person. The impugned order passed by the learned A.S.J. indicates that the Revisonal Court has observed that only on the basis of an agreement, the petitioner cannot be held to be not complicit in the offence and the confiscation proceedings cannot be said to be illegal. It has been observed that as the vehicle was involved in the offence, the confiscation proceedings were drawn. Thus it has affirmed the order of the prescribed officer and the appellate officer. -6- 8. In the opinion of this Court, the person who has given the vehicle on agreement clearly indicating therein that the vehicle would not be used for transportation of any goods which are prohibited by the State and Central Government. Prima faice, it appears that due care and caution was taken by the petitioner. The record does not reflect that the transportation of the wooden planks (beeja) was within the knowledge of the petitioner. If a person carries out transportation of any prohibited goods, without the consent and knowledge, particularly when the owner of the offending vehicle has taken due care and caution before giving that vehicle to that person would definitely take shelter of Section 15 (6) of the Act of 1969. Therefore, the authorities below have failed to appreciate this aspect in its proper perspective. In light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 10 of 2014 and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order is liable to be and is hereby set aside. This Court on 29.04.2014 granted interim custody of the offending vehicle to the petitioner, therefore no further order is required to be passed. 9. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish