Alka W/O Thukaram Sadhu Raut vs State By Authorised Officer on 3 April, 2008

THE Hou'BL1: MR.;1US1'i€1E"N.   
CQJQNAL Pgm;g1'  

W10. Thukaram sadh_11_Rag1t__ ; V V
R10 No.975; V"ija%_. Kalewadi = 
(By  N. Sanuolli.

'l"II'iVl'Ifl."flVl'i.'L_ I

-III-IIV:'l\uIIlI-'J9' -. V 3

State"By 'Aut11'   

and Deputy 'C'pnacrearah:-r of Fomat
Kappa Divism Korm-

.     Govcrnment Plunder

I-IJ er?' I

'V .   I-1|. V'-I9;_;'IzII'lIIl3'l'I"'IflI'£'I.r -nun I-Ir' I31
 I l_ I-In-I-Isnulll-Inna: an-.1--nan'

   petifi is fiiad iifider aar:'ri':n 432
Cr.P."C., praying to quash the order dated 11.01.2005 passed
"   by tE:q__c"AuthoIiaed  and Deputy Conservator of Fomesta,

.. A1 '  in FOG No.3[93-94 & etc.

 TM; pcijtign co;ni_11g on   hearing this day, the
? Court made the following:



= r."....:
; ucwu

llflllflfl
35.5-K-HE

The petitioner was the owner' of   , 
14/5832. On 03.04.1993, ma' Iyehiciefiv  °  by "

forest ofliciale near Nagalapurja  on  

Kappa and Sringeri. 'I"he""*iV'orerrt  -'found = 127
sandalwood billets»  driver and
other  of    and said vehicle
wa  firr custody of

vehlmle 1.29;.-r'.r.;e.;ar"-.;;2-g-in»-a;.;;.  DepI.rt_I,r Cxrrreerv.-ot,or gr

.3 .. -4-a:

_ .;'   A--y::';LVIV.;..___   fl  .. l*h'I'I n_i-stun:-:11!
. , 4 n , -- I.(l_.lX-II-I-l_-II,

   of petitioner that her ve'nar:re' ' was
stolen ori' not been proved. 'l'he_Author.iaed

   lags   petitioner has failed to prove she has
i  measure to prevent misuse of her

" X iyehic1§;iuer:;+.aia:iver of vehicle was not examined before the

 Officer. The private eornplaint filed on

x °1f_iJ1Mi,1993 ware. not pursued. The Authorised. Ofieer has

Aauvufl-n In-uuninu I-uh-r Irn-I-Ir uvnn  

IJDIJIJIIIIUJ uwuyaua SI-I-II-fI'I'llla° um: swan.' vv-u-u pa



. '-.1' .,__ t. I__)__'~ _; _._.'.-_.£ _.__. .-.1.... ......
1 .5...

p _ ._. _$ _.__.._1-- In n ..
-_ 'PCvfi.'li.'.!§'.l'.l.I<.-..Iv~.'-'..Irl:l.l.l.lI=l_y n.uupu.Iu w at man

ll)

Aw. of e -v-'.2 1'*.'.%um was by

2. The Authorised  on  

L'_;.__n  tn': "it-1_.L_¥n.1.gae of

39*.
stolen before   wast not 
Aggrieved   "wfom Fast 'Hack
Court-I    No.9/2001. The
mean  of evidence has held
petitioner'  dam had taken all pmcautionary
  vehicle. The contention taken by
petiflonerllthatfher 'Vtrehicle was stolen on 03.04.1993 from

\

Q _  -. .. - _  U- __ .
subznisasion of learned Counsel for petitioner that theme is no

AL',

 n Vt on record to show that petitioner had no knowledge

ll *  lorry bearing No.MH-14/5882 was-misused, which I am

 not persuaded to accept. The petitioner being owner of

vehicle was expected to take care of misuse of her vehicle.

m. ¢J¢v-'f'/-"'"l"'~



...e g.l.....1.-zer ..h..u.|d 11...: e:1~....a.-at... her ...e!1..'-;-:.% 3.. 3 '-.'h-,'..'....
-9 I___ __._1:_n_.__._. m-1..- _.__;.:.n.:___...._ ..______4 I_,.,-_ 4.1.- _-._1__'.,.1Q."Je1_
I.IlI'C-CIIIIQKI (.3 I110 I.I.I.'K7I.7:I(.7l.'I.I.I.I.II..'!""'.r¢l.v'.vI-"C 1 'JP

discretion of driver of mm ° ' . The eontein1uiq:i4pf.1ie9:i'non' erfis e

not consistent with her subaequefit 
has not filed a complaint   On the
other hand, on   a private
complaint on the   against four
unknown  'I?here.:,ie  on record to show

that pm!-,.._t..4 _e..,.._.pL.11,t sage pua'aI..e1;i_=

 3? abdve, 1 hold concurrent findings
 by h the Olfioer and learned Sessions
Jpgldge. thet   failed to pmve she had taken all

3.1.1

-,-c.aI.V’…1..’2:-2¢_…”3r et..p-=_a t- p._.-n_t m–__- .1′ 11.1′ ve-hivlr ha- n_t
‘I-sans.-. 31:1’-an-:1-‘fit: 1-In. -u-u.I- :1:-I’ firm-urn nanny
IHSGII Gfifn ‘-ll ‘lull 3’-ll 3-ll: Jul-II-I-II-IItII.rI-II.o”lv

2 .. fkhyfiven on Ieeonsicleration of matter, I am not able to

At ‘ the submission of leamed Counsel for petitioner. The

h#..’.tinv-er ha. failed to – f.eb1I’.s.Ih that her was t.t_r_lI.e.2I_1

\.r-5.-.-n — ——u- an — —

dunamlaiaf

‘mu
‘5’ Pl’; J-ll

“I’\7.

“|–

_’I.._ ‘I_….I dun.’I-.-gun …I’l –u-mg.-nun-I-‘ can gum:

and anus: uuu u:uu::.u an pun:-as u.u”””‘uih_y 7.fi”‘ Ill-

3%!

Uh

………” ” 1.-.:

_:…–….. 1.. l!).l..’I.J.’l.- $1..

..a’.- 1…… ……I.. 1.. -. 1.. – ‘ –. ;
Lunuuuc U! 11:11’ vcuwm. luguuy, I.uI:: I-ltl.Il..l’1;I.flT=ii ‘-.:_.In.’LV

rejected ciaim of petitioner. This

by the learned Sessions Judge. 1

___1___ ________1 1.– n__ n__.n.___…_-……fl -‘{}n’2:”.,…_._ .._.§’ -….,_._gv.”_._.1 L… n…
013161′ Pflflfifll. Hy ULIG l,”’h.l.Il..l1UIV -. ‘ JIIJGI Illlll C-“In.’u”.I.!-I-“0-I’l-l’-III»! Hy I-Ill’:

learn” ea Scaaions Ju&g¢;;m_u; * ‘ petition” is

dismissed. V ”