The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for an order for quashing the order dated 14.09.2004 passed by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Case No. C-11/2004, whereby the order passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 7 of 2001 in favour of the petitioner, was set aside and the original order of confiscation of the petitioner’s truck, was restored.

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent State.

4. Facts of the petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing Registration No. BHU 2713. On 15.5.2001 the truck was seized within the forest area when it was found that it was carrying four pieces of Bija logs and 8 pieces of Gamhar logs and the driver of the truck could not produce any permit under the provisions of the Forest Act for transporting the timber on the vehicle. After seizure of the vehicle, a confiscation proceeding was initiated in respect of the vehicle.

Defence raised by the petitioner in the confiscation proceeding was that though, he was the owner of the vehicle, but the illegal use of the vehicle by the driver was never authorized by him, nor was the transportation of the timber on the truck, made in connivance with the petitioner in any manner. It was further stated that the original driver having gone on leave, the petitioner had engaged another driver as a temporary hand for driving his truck and the driver was instructed by the petitioner only to transport bricks and deliver the same at the specified destination. After unloading the bricks, when the driver was returning with the empty truck, one raiyat of the village namely, Jeevan Bara had prevailed upon the driver to load his timber, which was felled from within his raiyati lands, and to deliver the same at the sawmill at Simdega and it was when the vehicle was in transit, that it was stopped by the forest Ranger.

5. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the Appellate Authority on considing the evidences on record, as adduced by the petitioner in support of his claim that the alleged illegal use of the vehicle by the driver for carrying the timber was not with his connivance or under his instruction to the driver and upon such evidence, had recorded its findings that the petitioner has not incurred any liability for confiscation of the vehicle as laid down under the provisions of section 52 of the Indian Forest Act.

Learned counsel submits that the Revisional Authority, in his impugned order, had failed to consider this aspect of the findings of the Appellate Authority on the evidences adduced by the petitioner and has set aside the order of the Appellate Authority only on the basis of the presumption, conjectures and surmises.

6. Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, would argue that the facts of the case, even as admitted by the petitioner, is that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized at the time when it was found carrying timber without obtaining permit under the relevant provisions of the Forest Act and therefore, the vehicle was liable to be confiscated. This very fact in itself leads to the presumption that the illegal use of the vehicle by its driver was made with the connivance and consent of the owner namely, the petitioner.

7. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act which provides for seizure of vehicles and lays down procedure for confiscation, also lays down in sub-clause 5 that no order of confiscation of the vehicle shall be made if any person (petitioner / owner in the present case) satisfy the authorized officer that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against the use of the vehicle, in commission of the of the alleged offence.