Confiscation of property under the Indian Forest Act requires proving the guilt during trial and establishing knowledge and connivance for confiscation.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 Constitution of India, seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 03/12/2006 passed in Criminal Revision No.172/2005 and to quash the proceedings of the confiscation of the Bus bearing No.CPV/549 and its auction, this petition has been preferred.

2. The facts which are not in dispute that the bus bearing No.CPV/549 was owned and registered in the name of Shri Krishn Pal Singh (petitioner), was plied under the valid permit vide Annexure P-2. Petitioner has given it on rent, executing an agreement with the driver and conductor to ply the said bus on the route as specified in permit. It is not in dispute that at the check post Hinothi on 19/12/2004 at about 9.00 AM the said bus was intercepted by forest officials and, as alleged, on the roof top of the bus 4 bags of "Kullu Gond" were found loaded. One of the co-accused Sapan Jain owe the liability of the said forest produce, however the offence under sections 5(a), 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanoupaj Vyapar Viniyam Adhiniyam, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as Vanoupaj Adhiniyam) read with section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and section 39(d) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 Amended in 1991 and 2003 was registered at Crime Case No.7553/2015, making Laxman Singh (Driver), Ajay (Conductor) and Sapan Jain S/o Munnalal Jain accuseds. They were tried by the competent court framing the charge under section 5/16 of the Vanoupaj Adhiniyam and also of section 26(1)(h) of Indian Forest Act. The Court found that charges levelled were not proved by the prosecution, however, acquitted them vide judgment dated 25/11/2005, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rehali in Criminal Case No.209/2005. Against the said judgment no appeal was filed by the Forest Department, however it remained unchallenged. It is also not in dispute that proceedings for confiscation were started during pendency of trial but prior to decision the competent authority has passed the order confiscating the vehicle in question on 10/04/2005. The said order has been confirmed by the appellate court on 31/08/2005, against which a revision was filed before the court of Sessions, however, during pendency of Revision, the judgment of acquittal was passed by trial court, which was brought before the revisional court. On filing the copy of the judgment of acquittal, the revisional court held that looking to the defence of accuseds, it cannot be presumed that forest produce "Kullu Gond" was not in the bags seized from the roof top of the vehicle. The court has held that mere acquittal of the accused persons would not cause any prejudice to the proceedings of confiscation, however revision was dismissed against which this petition has been filed, challenging the orders of confiscation of vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner after reading the findings of acquittal recorded in para 13, 14 and 17 of the judgment has strenuously urged that prosecution has failed to prove that the goods in question transported on the roof top of vehicle was the forest produce "Kullu Gond", however, trial court found that commission of the forest offence has not proved. In addition, looking to the discussion made by the authority in the order impugned, it is clear that conductor and driver were not having knowledge regarding loading of forest produce, by co-accused Sapan Jain on the roof top of the bus. In the said context referring the provisions contained in section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act urged that satisfaction recorded to confiscate the vehicle, confirmed by the revisional court is without due consideration of the material available, and without due application of mind which is unsustainable. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Sarjoo Prasad S/o Mullu Choudhary v. State of M.P reported in 2006(2) MPLJ 65, and urged that order impugned and the proceeding of auction may be set aside.

4. Per Contra, learned Panel Lawye