The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the burden of proof regarding the knowledge and precautions taken against the use of a vehicle for a forest offence lies with the respondent, and if successfully discharged, can lead to the release of the confiscated vehicle.

ORDER PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This writ appeal is directed against order dated 29-11-2005 [2006(2) M.PL.J. 65] (Annexure-A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 848 of 1996 whereby, petition filed by the respondent has been allowed setting aside the order of confiscation of the vehicle of the respondent.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner of tractor trolley No. MPQ 3009. On 19-1-1995, the said tractor and trolley was seized by the forest authorities. At the time of seizure, the tractor was being driven by driver Ashok Kumar. Forest Offence No. 11375/25 dated 19-1-1995 was registered. On 23-1-1995, the respondent was served with a show cause notice under section 52 (4) of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1927”) stating therein that 57 ballies, 7 Bamboos and two bundles of fire wood were seized from the tractor in question. The respondent was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken for confiscation there to. The respondent filed his reply explaining that few villagers requested the driver to help them in carrying the aforesaid articles for their own use. The driver bona fide carried those articles. The respondent produced witnesses to substantiate his stand. However, no witnesses were produced by the Forest Department. On 14-3-1995, the Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) passed an order of confiscation of the vehicle in question. The respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21-7-1995. Therefore, the respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 120 of 1995 before Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur who vide order dated 26-12-1995, dismissed the revision and, therefore, respondent preferred the petition before this Court.

3. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order allowed writ petition and set aside order dated 14-3-1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, order dated 21-7-1995 passed by the appellate Authority and order dated 26-12-1995 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. The State Government is, therefore, in this intra Court appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has exceeded to its jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution. The entire material available on record ought not to have been re-appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, interference is called for.

5. A perusal of order passed by the learned Single Judge would show that the learned Single Judge has noted that the seizure memo itself was doubtful. Contradictions in the seizure memo and the show cause notice were specifically noted in Para-7 of the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has also found that the original authority and the appellate authority both have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that there was no material to prove the knowledge of the respondent in carrying the vehicle for alleged offence. Since the Revisional authority did not deal with the aforesaid crucial aspect of the matter, therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that the respondent has successfully discharged his burden under sub-section (5) of section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Therefore, the action of the authorities confiscating vehicle of the respondent was found to be improper. It be also noted that the respondent has adduced evidence in his support to prove that the vehicle in question was used without his knowledge and he had taken all necessary precautions against use of the said vehicle for commission of the forest offence.

6. We further find that during the pendency of the writ petition, vehicle in question was directed to be released in favour of respondent vide order dated 1-5-1996 passed by the learned Single Judge against furnishing a solvent surety of a sum of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to the satisfa