ORDER
1. Heard both sides.
2. The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized on the allegation that it was involved in the forest offence of transportation of illicit timber. The petitioner pleaded that he was not aware of the fact that the vehicle was being used for illegal transportation of the forest produce. The Divisional Forest Officer found on an enquiry, that in addition, to the driver, a relative of the owner was also present in the vehicle at the time of transportation of the forest produce and at the time of seizure. The Divisional Forest Officer, rejecting the case of the owner that he was not aware of the illicit transport of timber, held that a forest offence has been committed and passed an order for confiscation. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Apparently the only aspect urged before the appellate authority was that the value of the timber that was transported illegally was meager compared with the value of the vehicle, the confiscation of the vehicle ought not to have been ordered. The Appellate Authority upheld that plea and that the confiscation was illegal and directed the release of the vehicle by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The argument of counsel for (he department that the vehicle could not be released in that manner was brushed aside, by the Appellate Authority who relied on the decision of a Single Bench of the Patna High Court. The Divisional Forest Officer concerned took up the matter in revision. The Revisional Authority found that the appellate authority had acted illegally in setting aside the order of confiscation. He found that the appellate authority has erred in following a Single Bench decision of the Patna High Court when the decision has been overruled by the decision of a Division Bench rendered on 6.2.1998. Finding that a forest offence was involved and it was proved, the Revisional Authority modified the order of the appellate authority, and restored the order of the original authority ordering confiscation of the vehicle.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Revisional Authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge, the only argument that was raised was the question whether in a case where the value of the forest produce illegally transported was low
compared to the value of the vehicle sought to be confiscated, the Revisional authority was not justified in interfering with the order of the Appellate Authority. The learned Judge felt that the Division Bench of the Patna High Court relied on by the Revisional authority, required reconsideration, in that view, the writ petition was referred to the Division Bench on the question whether the Division Bench of the Patna High Court relied on by the Revisional Authority required reconsideration.
5. The Forest Act has been enacted with a view to protect the forests. Various orders have been passed by the Supreme Court in an attempt to protect the forests in P.N. Godavarnan Thirumul Pad v. Union of India and Ors., 1997 (2) SCC 267. In the context of the need for protecting the forests and the mandate of Article 48A of the Constitution of India, it is clear that the forest laws and the provisions dealing with penalties should be construed in such a manner as to achieve the object sought to be achieved by the Forest Act and to prevent the commission of such forest offences which lead to environmental degradation. In fact the approach to the law has been indicated by the Supreme Court in State of Karnatka v. K. Krishnan, AIR 2000 SC 2729.
6. In this background, we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Dilip Kumar Pandey v. State of Bihar, in 1998 (1) East Cr C 687 (Patna). The view taken therein in our view is consistent with the object sought to be achieved, primarily of protecting the forests. We have no hesitation in agreeing with this ratio therein on the scheme of the Forest Act with particular reference to Sections 52 and 68 of that Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that it was not. established that the offence was within the knowledge to the owner of the vehicle. First of all, it is seen that no such aspect was argued by the petitioner even before the Appellate Authority. Moreover, the facts found by the
Forest Authority and affirmed by the Revisional Authority clearly show that a relative of the petitioner was also present in the vehicle during the illegal transportation of the timber, in addition to the driver employed by the owner himself. The finding is that the owner has not been able to prove that the transportation was without his knowledge. This finding of facts clearly justified. That finding does not call for any interference. Certainly, there is no error apparent on the face of the record justifying interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned counsel finally submitted that under Section 68 of the Act the owner
has a right to seek the release of the vehicle
on payment of the value of the seized articles and the value of the vehicle as
determined. Of course if an offence of the
nature as specified in that provision has
been committed and the claim comes
within its purview, such a power may exist
in the authority referred to in Section 68 of
this Act. We are concerned here only with the
question, whether the order of the Revisional
Authority confirming the order for confiscation passed by the Forest Authority
requires interference by this Court or not.
On the materials, we are satisfied that the
Revisional order calls for no interference.
We therefore, affirm that order and dismiss
the writ petition.