The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove lack of knowledge or connivance for confiscation under the Indian Forest Act, and the independent nature of confiscation proceedings under the Act.

As per S.A. Bobde, CJ. :-

The appellant/petitioner has challenged the order of confiscation dated 27-1-2007 passed by the Revisional Authority, i.e., District and Sessions Judge, Balaghat refusing quashment of the order dated 25-3-2006 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 10-10-2006 in the writ petition.

2. By the said orders the respondent/Forest Officer has confiscated the petitioner's machines known as Pokland Tata Machine (Hitachi-Ex-60) (chain wheel drive) as well as Dumpers bearing registration No. MP 26-D/3150 and MP 23-D/5004 under Sections 26 (1), 30 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 2 (2) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner's machines were seized by the Forest Officer on 24-11-2001 while they were found engaged in lifting Manganese Ore from mines in the forest area. On a complaint made by the Beat Officer of the Forest Department one Chhotelal and two other persons were found at the spot with the aforesaid vehicles. According to the Forest Authorities the contractor, who had hired the vehicles of the petitioner/appellant, in conspiracy with the petitioner was extracting Manganese Ore from Mines, for which, the Contractor did not have a valid permission from the Forest Department and that in any case, the extraction of the Ore was being made with the consent of the Contractor as well as the petitioner. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the driver as well as the labourers, who were present on the spot, under Sections 26 (1), 30 and 33 of the Forest Act and Section 2 (2) of the Forest Protection Act. Thereafter, the matter was investigated into by the Forest Officer. In the meanwhile a criminal complaint, which was made to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, was decided and it was held that from the evidence on record the petitioner/appellant did not have any intention to indulge in any forest offence and there was no material on record to show that petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 26 (1) read with Sections 30 and 33 of Forest Act. The petitioner/appellant was thus discharged.

4. The Forest Authority, however, seized and confiscated the machines as well as the dumpers. Aggrieved with the said decision an appeal was preferred by the petitioner/appellant to the Appellate Authority under Section 59 of the Act, which was dismissed and the revision challenging the order of Appellate Authority, has also been dismissed. Thus, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner.

5. The main contention on behalf of petitioner is that the petitioner's property as aforesaid could not have been confiscated since the petitioner had merely given his machines on hire to the forest contractor under an agreement dated 21-11-2001 for transportation purported to have been signed at Nagpur between the parties. Thus, the petitioner's property ought not to have been confiscated, since the petitioner did not have any knowledge of the purpose for which the vehicle has been used. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner relied upon Section 52 (5) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which reads as follows :-

"52. (5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the timber or forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or, as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest-offence."

"6. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that an order of confiscation could not have been passed since the ap