IMPORTANT POINT
Under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyamar 1969) Amendment Act, 1986, burden is cast upon the owner of the truck to prove that his truck was used for illegal activities without his knowledge and not with his connivance and mere ipse dixit of the owner cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to discharged this burden.

JUDGMENT

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-This appeal by Special Leave is filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 1996 in writ petition No. 701 of 1994 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.

2. The facts in brief are as under :-

The respondent herein is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. MPW-4015. It is a common premise that the said truck was used to be given on hire for transporting the goods. It is claimed by the owner that he had engaged a driver to ply the truck.

3. On receipt of a secret information, a direction was given to the forest employees of Maksudangarh, forest region to cordon the area at 2.00 a.m. on 17th January, 1991 to check illegal transportation of the forest produce. At about 2.00 a.m., a truck was spotted near Kalapatha and when it was tried to be stopped by the forest employees, the inmates of the said truck opened fire from the fire arm and fled away. The cleaner of the said truck was however apprehended on the spot. The truck was then brought to the forest depot and it was revealed that it was carrying 120 logs of teak wood covered by tarpoline. The truck and the forest produce were seized and a necessary information was forwarded to the Regional Officer, Maksudangarh on the same day. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghogarh court, was duly informed on 18th January, 1991 by the Competent Authority. On conclusion of the preliminary investigation, confiscation proceedings were initiated by the Competent Authority (SDO), Beenaganj under Section 15(4)(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyamar 1969) Amendment Act, 1986 (for short Adhiniyam ). The Competent Authority during the confiscation proceedings recorded statements of various forest employees and called upon the respondent to cross-examine them if he so desired. From the record, it appears that he declined to cross-examine any of these witnesses. In defence, the respondent got recorded his statement and he was cross-examined by the Competent Authority.

4. On conclusion of the confiscation proceedings, the Competent Authority by its order dated Nil ordered confiscation of the truck in exercise of its powers under sub Section (6) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority which by its order dated 23rd February, 1993 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority. The respondent thereafter challenged these orders before the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri by filing Criminal Revision No. 61 of 1993. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1994 allowed the Revision Application and set aside the orders passed by the forest Authorities. The State of M.P. impugned the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri by filing writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. The learned Judge, however, vide his judgment and order dated 2nd January, 1996 dismissed the writ petition. It is against this order passed by the learned Judge of the High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal.

5. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the relevant material on record. The main thrust of the High Court judgment is breach of Section 15(5) and (6) of the Adhiniyam. While dealing with these provisions, the High Court appears to have affirmed the view of the Revisional Court that the respondent-truck owner was not provided with proper legal assistance. The High Court then observed :-

"Under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, the criminal liability has to be proved. This proof was missing in this case."

In para 6 of the impugned judgment, the High Court observed :-

"A reading of Section 15(6) of the Adhiniyam makes it apparent that an order of confiscation is not to be made unless and until it is sho