Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Yarraguntla Balachandrudu – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.22434 of 2014
Decided on : 15-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P NAGENDRA REDDY
Once a vehicle is proved to be used in the commission of a forest offence, the onus of proof shifts to the owner to prove lack of knowledge or connivance, and strict compliance with the A.P. Forest Act is necessary to prevent the release of such vehicles.
Headnote:
Forest Offence - Confiscation of Vehicle - A.P. Forest Act - Section 44(1), 44(2-A) - 1990 (1) ALT 156 (S.B), Civil Appeal No.991 of 2002, 1980 (1) ALT 8 (D.B) - The court dismissed the Writ Petition seeking release of the confiscated vehicle, holding that the vehicle was involved in the forest offence. The court referred to various judgments to establish that once it is proved that the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence, the onus of proof shifts to the owner to prove lack of knowledge or connivance. The court also emphasized the need for strict compliance with the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act to prevent the release of vehicles involved in forest offences.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitioner's vehicle was confiscated for allegedly escorting a lorry carrying prohibited forest produce. The Writ Petitioner challenged the confiscation through various legal proceedings, claiming lack of involvement in the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Writ Petitioner's vehicle was involved in the forest offence based on the timing and location of its presence near the lorry carrying prohibited goods. The court also noted the delay in filing the charge sheet and the lack of progress in similar forest offence cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Writ Petitioner's vehicle was rightfully confiscated for its alleged involvement in the forest offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once it is proved that the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence, the onus of proof shifts to the owner to prove lack of knowledge or connivance. The court also emphasized the need for strict compliance with the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act to prevent the release of vehicles involved in forest offences.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition seeking release of the confiscated vehicle was dismissed, and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was directed to investigate the inefficiency/negligence/connivance in forest offence cases.
ORDER :
Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri D. Khasim Saheb, Learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing for the Respondents.
2. The relief sought for by the Writ Petitioner is as under:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in confiscating the Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 belong to the petitioner vide impugned proceedings in Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 even though the said vehicle is not involved in transportation of forest produce or commission of any act in terms of section 44 (1) of A.P. Forest Act and it is not liable to be confiscated u/s 44 (2-A) of the Forest Act and consequential judgment and decree in CMA No.1/2014 dated 28.07.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the Innova Toyota Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 to the petitioner by setting aside the orders in Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 passed by the 1st respondent and consequential judgment and decree in CMA No.1/2014 dated 28.07.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge Kurnool at Nandyal to the extent of Innova Toyota Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 is concerned in the interest of justice.”
3. As it is clear from the above mentioned prayer that the Authorized Officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Kurnool, by Proceedings bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP dated 09.12.2013 has confiscated a lorry bearing No.HR-61-B-3517 and Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP-21- AQ-4979 along with three numbers of Cell Phones. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2014 preferred by one Yerraguntla Bala Chandrudu, owner of Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP- 21-AQ-4979. The III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, by Order dated 28.07.2014 was pleased to dismiss the Appeal by holding that it is not a fit case for release of Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP-21-AQ-4979.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
4. The Writ Petitioner is the owner of Innova Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 (purchased in December, 2012). On 08.07.2013, the Nandyal Taluq Police seized the said Vehicle alleging that the Vehicle is involved in escorting a Lorry which was illegally carrying Red Sanders Wood and Sandra logs on 08.07.2013.
5. The Police have registered a Crime No.156/2013 for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C and Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Red Sandal Possession Rules, 1989 and Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Transit Rules, 1976 and under other provisions of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act. The Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.35915 of 2013 before this Hon’ble Court on 09.12.2013. While the matter was pending before this Hon’ble Court, the 1st Respondent had issued Proceedings bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 (Ex.P1), confiscating the forest produce along with Lorry and also the Innova Vehicle belonging to the Writ Petitioner. By virtue of the said Proceeding, this Court had disposed of W.P.No.35915 of 2013 by giving liberty to the Writ Petitioner to challenge the said Proceeding bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 (Ex.P1).
6. The Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.1608 of 2014 questioning the Confiscation Orders bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 (Ex.P1). This Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 24.01.2014 was pleased to dismiss the said Writ Petition by giving liberty to the Writ Petitioner to challenge the same by way of statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority.
7. In terms of the Order of this Court dated 24.01.2014, the Writ Petitioner filed an Appeal bearing C.M.A.No.1 of 2014 before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, by Order dated 28.07.2014 (Ex.P4), was pleased to dismiss
