WP IO144,'2006
1
12¢ ma: HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BARGALORVET
DATED mrs mm 23:» DAY or ocronza, ~
BEFORE '" " ' "
'1'!-IE'. Honrnm h§R.JU8T1{§E n.;s.P;{rrr xi." b'
BETWEEN:
SR1 H.'I'.GANESH,
S/C>.i,ATE SR: CHOMA, ,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, ,
occ: TOURISI' OPERATOR, __ .
BANGALORE TOURIST BUREA_U,=,
R/AT No.22, SAMP:'_xN£3} TANK R«:~>,A1:.,-.._=--__ *
BANGALORE~5@O _ PETITXONER
(BY SR1 L.S.CF{IKI<;ANAGOUDAR., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATED?' §{ARNATAK?s,.
REPRESENTED BY RANGE'-FOREST OFFICER,
FOREST M0B1LEVsQU;xD;~... ~~
SHIMOGA. '" '
- f1'}l:'E<'At1"*;*'1-I(3§"<1sED«_é'£?*F*1cER 85
» 'IRE D.EPU'I'Y "CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
_ 'FQREs*;:._Mmé3z.LE. SQUAD,
.sI+:.1_MoGA_~v_C,:R.(;i;E, SHIMOGA. RESPONDENTS
V V' _(BY sM.T.s;§RaiiN1MUTHANNA,ADv. FOR Re-1 85 R---2}
' AA 'WTHIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTEQN OF INDIA PRAYiNG TO QUASH THE ORDER VIBE
_ EXURE-B DATED 30.5.1999 PASSED {N CRL.MIS.APPEAL N052/1993
__ LEARNED DISTMCT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA AND THE
" ~.QR33ER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 05.03.1993 PASSED IN CASE
V NQ.FMS.SMGr.F'OC.181/92«93 BY THE 2"? RESPONDENT THE
A ~ AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CGNSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
P'ORE$T MOBEE SQUAD, SHIMOGA CiRCLE, SHIMOGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIM{NARY HEARING 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWENG:
wnrr Pmmox Ho.1o144 éw gékxfiékg
WP 10144/2006
2
ORDER
1. Petitioner is the owner of a Manlthi Van beating £\§o.KA~
{)1-2855. He is challenging the order dated. 30.06. 1999:
menfioned as 30.05.1999 in the prayer Coluzzzriiofv
Petition) passed in Crl. Misc. No.52] 1.993_}}y V
Sessions Judge, Shimoga, eon,fireeing:’¢he._’_AorE1ef’of’
dated 05.03.1993 passed by the res’p§ne,¢1:£V§*vv.i;1u:hofised-V.%’
Officer and Deputy Consexfyrator oA{.I%’oA1esis,pA Squad,
Shimoga Cfiincle, shimoga; *
2. The 2″‘ exerciee of his
powers under the Fomst Act, 1963
(hezeinai’t:ef’fefe.:§r%e§i. short), confiscating the
vehicle setnciahvood pieces and chips
weighing 16?; vehieie. Aggrieved by this order,
9 the ovgiier tee vehi ~le..e+petitioner herein filed an appeal under
€3e’c{ion i.s4[)po:9.At:he_Act before the learned Addi. Sessions Judge,
Shim.oga. appeal having been dismissed, the present
‘writ peergoig is Else.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition
in nutshell are that on 31.01.1993 at about 7.30 am”,
‘V V A» u’*a’33% Forest Mobile Squad, Shtimoga, stopped 3. Vehicle bearing
WP 10144{200€i
3
No.KA–01~2855 near M.R.S. on Umblebylu-Shimoga road on
suspicion. On inspection it was found that the ve]:1ie:1eé’»t.\x2’as
driven by one Mohammad Nayaz Pasha.
Srinivasajah and Sri K31′. Puttaswamy S/0
were the inmates of the vehicle.
anested. The forest staif seized A ijieces
Weighing 157 Kgs and plastic bag’Se«t..1:iaving. 1’0._Kgs:.ofe§2_eda’1woodVV
chips, totaily weighing 1″at’s?_” Kgsim FOI’éét Oflicer,
Fozest Mobile Squad, S11iI’1:V1MO.5gAa,’ ‘ease in No.F’MS.
SMG.F’OC.181/ aedvnducted and the
vehicle was sefiézedfl b
4. A Show tég:’use,_ ‘i1otic:e’r_3__a3fae to be issued by the Forest
Omeer to the tow31e:c._efj.the4’vefii-é1e–pe1:i1:ioner herein calling upon
him ‘tq e have Z say as £9 Why the vehicle should not be
teonfist. V V.V“*;1te’rEl’; The owfiefttef the vehicle —- petitioner herein, zeplied
‘éofitgfidi:§:ge–«.i;:£é;r.§::ja that the vehicle was used in the illegal
sandalwood Without his knowledge and that
” i;j’~.__}i’re had fiotitmg to do with the materiais recovered or seized from
_bstei1ic1e. The 235 Respontient-=Autho1ised Ofiicer on
V’ iveggmidexation of the reply submitted, has passed the impugned
Iolder of confiscation homing that the exp}:-matio11 offered by the
0%: of the vehicle that he had taken aii the care While
we 1o144,r2oo6
4
entrusting the vehicle to the driver and that he had no
connection at all or that he had no knowledge of the vehicle
being involved in the uansportation of the sandalwood not
be believed.
S. in the course of enquiry before the .,
several witnesses were examined and _ statements_ “of
Hameed, Range Forest Ofiicer and Miififieemaraiyangia;
Guard of Forest Mobiie Squad, Sfiiniega Cin:’.1i_e’,’ wens V
recorded and documents report,
enquixy report of the Q.f[jee’;j,.ii__eic., were zeiied
upon.
6. ‘¥’hev7,oW1ie1*v ‘¢5£’i’j*tz§Le “(petitioner herein) examined
himself. The Bureau, Bangalore, Sn’ Hari
_. and one Rntnaehalzdra, nwner of the hotel known as
AV(_3aA1::eel:i were also examined. The petitioner
upon documents in the form of certificates
V issue<:Ix"by 'edvocate and also a certificate issued by the
, ., '{j'.«ener:a1 Menager of Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, certifying" '
Considering the evidence on record bath orai and
entary, the 2"' respo11dent–Aufl1orised Ofieer has found
, vehicieg
we £0144/2006
5
that once it is estabiished that a forest ofience is committed and
the Vehicle along with sandalwood was seized, as the
provisions of the Act and the Rules, it was the
the owner to prove that the forest offence” V’
Without his or his ageI::t’s knowlcdgefstlid $11.4
respondent has further held that ,
establish that he had taken all :’a,a’;sanab”1e-,gmca;;sc§§é”‘agajnst’
such misuse. Referring Vto~.sub~ct1éiuse;–of Sections’/V21-E3 of the
Act and considering the’ the Authorised
Oficer has he1d_ttL;;,~§ the ‘__:2retr’icte failed to prove
that Without; _or’fi,_ or Without the
knowledge of used in transporting the
‘ :1-,3′: circumstances, the Authorised
Oficer has to order for confiscation of the
The,’ Sessions Judge, on appeal, has re»
af)33t’e€iateotV”.”_’the,;;.’evidence or: record and has come to the
V «Vconcltisioioudthért the order passed by the Authorised Officer did
s1;fi’er”‘£iom any illegaiity or error. He has also reeonied a
that although it was pleaded by the owner that the
T -«Wdtitfer was forced at lmjfe point to use the vehicle for the
U purpose of carrying sandalwood, in the absence of any
.%
WP 10144253006
complaint being lodged by the driver, the said version could not
be believed. The leazneci Sessions Judge has also “.3
finding that the owner of the vehicle was not-‘ehoxviixiig
bonafides in the case when he urged v’rh9;’£-the
on hire to one Mnsuresh to enablei’1’.Vhiiiiil’io fie
Several aspects axe pointed outiibfthe leéir1;ed,.v$eeéioi:s~Ji2dge”V V
as to how and why the _oW1ier–veou.1i1 not be
believed. K 2
9. it is well estal’;’lis3hed:.fl1’at jurisdiction, it
is neither iuoifthis Court to ten
appreciate 1 and come to a contmry
conclusioxiiio ‘(he the learned Sessions Judge,
as it is in-vthe ofepgézeciation of evidence on record.
“10, A “iL»eo;f=r1ed”i’Couneel”éij;ipeaIing for the petitioner strenuously
it is shown that there is connivance of
the iowieer vehicle with the allegeci offence committed,
l 4.._¢ven if it’~i,§i’assumed that the driver had in fact involved in the
V’ coégimiéeion of the ofience, the order confiscating the vehicle
ii be passed. ile submits that the provisions contained
f311<:Ier Section '?14-8(2) of the Act make it clear that What the
lie'
WP 1014412006
7
owner is required to establish is his non-connivance in the
ofihncc and the reasonable care taken by him in entrusting the
vehicle.
11. The above contention urged by the 1ea111ed__;,_fb:r«A
the petitioner cannot be accepted. In this mgaxvi to. u
extract Section 7 1-B(2) of the Act sis» _ T
’71-5(2): Without pmjudige pmqigsofzs “of; A
sulrsection. (1), no order any
chain, boat, vehicieor (x1tAtIe_
section 71A ifthe owxfiv” chain, boat,
vehicle or cattle proves’ tc of the
in carrying the
tinrz b er,’– ‘sa§i a”‘ciV§as;fdos1V7,””-Téiicwrooal, firewood, gulmava
(Mac:%zizzgs%%n¢¢m3:éf:a_i”2;::%2é;’ daldzini bark, Halmaddi
(e.t14dat£6i;V_§3f Aihszfi-fijé..ma1abn’wzm] canes or ivory
_ or oonnivanoe of the owner
A __agent, if any, and the person in change
ifié-«.§bé?;’~.rbpe, ahain, boat, vehicie or cxtztfle and
‘A them had taken all maitable and
prvecxzufions against such use. ”
is” fmm the provision that no ottier of confificatzinn shall
“j izc Emacs if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Authorised
» ~ Ofi<:er that the vehicle was used in carrying the timber,
sandalwood, etc, without the knowledge of the owner himself,
1%"
WP 10144/2006
8
his agent, if any, and the yerson in charge of the tool, rope,
chain, boat, Vehicle, etc. In other Words, to escape from the
penal provision what is required to be estab}ished:jtoe. the
satisfaction of the Authorised Officer is that
nor his agent nor any person in charge of i hadi
connived in the commission of the -I had
taken all reasonable and necessary pI\s§éautions.”.tAa;gaii1st:.< such
illegal use of the vehicle. It eno11§;h_ iotvner to
establish that he had 1:eeessa.'3t"p.recautio'nsV.v But, it is
a pre-requisite, as per the liability
of confiscation, to-t_V estahiish' agent, who was
entrusted with also taken neasonable care and
had not In the instant case, the driver
_ who was ent111ste'd_tVt=t?ith the Vehicle has not given any evidence
hefoze the:A.At3vtho1ised Omcer. The owner has not chosen to
__ the owner claims that the diiver used the
V _ vehicle ithseommission of the offence having been coerced at
to hansport the sandalwood, no material is
to pmbablirse this version. If that was the case, the
it driizer should have filed a oomplaint against the person who
" threatened him, that too at knife point, Even the owner who
%
we i0144f200a6
9
claims that he had learnt about it has also not 1odgegi1afn3,
complaint in this zegaxvd immediately.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitionetjolias p1a¢ed1ij:e}ia:nc¢ on ” ”
an unreported judgment rendered in
No.68/1996 disposed of on 22.10-.4t1299sV§”.e.1’i1 theetsmitiitgasgi, theljt»
confiscation order passed by the been set
aside by the Sessions tmthozised
Oficer had pxefemed a Court. While
dismissing has observed
that the V’?’1~A of the Act were
independent and had nothing to do
with the result of cose pending against the accused
_ pezsonsiwho were .itivo1vet1 in the theft of forest products under
the Act. The facts and circumstances involved
not similar to the fiacts and circumstances
_i11vo1\i’e.d lfiresent ease and the court had so occasion to
.4 4A”’-inter;)ret. the provisions contained under Section 71-8(2) of the
in fact, the judgment rendered by this Court in Rameah
.. :.VN.DIxit Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ER 1985 KAR 2571
has :1 bearing on the legal question involved in the present case.
I%.
we 10144,f2006
10
in the said case, this Court has laid down that the Authorised
Oficer can order confiscation upon being safisfied as to the
commission of the forest ofietuce and after holding an enqjiixy as
contempiated under the provisions of the Act. It
that the owner was required to Show under sub¥e:ectio:t’ (‘f2)’ of
Section ‘7 1–B of the Act that be, his a,gettt;’ if any
in charge of the vehicle had taken all
plecautione against the misuse’.._the xvehjctetwthétt the
ofience had been the “1{:uovV§’1edge or
connivanee of any of them.
examinai:i.o;n_ of ‘t5thVe.VV_ the facts and circumstances
adverted to the as amnned by the learned
Sessio;31s~:J_udge Show that was not shown that the driver of
the :’h2ide;1othijt§’to do with the commission of the offence
teliqen all reasonabie care in the matter against
the vehicle. This wilt disentitle the petitioner flora
a”s13ecessfi11cha}}enge to the order.
— tn the above cixcumstagnees, the apgzaroaeh adopted by the
“fi;iitho1ised Officer in passing the order eohfiscating the vehicle
V along with the materials and the oréer passed by the learned
%,
WP10144/2006
11
Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the geiiiiioner
herein, cannot be chazactaxized as illegal. Them
jurisdiction or of law in the impumed oIir:i<_:,i7*g.iV_"" ins.'
petiticn being devoid of merits is disniisseg.' ; -I' ~ A "V '