Back
RAVI MALIMATH, PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
SARJOO PRASAD S/o MULLU CHOUDHARY – Respondent
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
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....
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing the involvement in a forest offence before passing an order of confiscation under the Indian Forest Act.
The necessity of complying with mandatory provisions before confiscating property under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and the prohibition of confiscation if the owner proves lack of knowledge or co....
The main legal point established is that the owner of a vehicle used in a forest offence may not be held responsible if they can prove lack of knowledge or connivance, as per Section 49(6) of the AFR....
The owner's liability in forest-offense cases is strict, requiring proof of non-involvement; mere denials are insufficient to overturn administrative actions.
Confiscation under the Indian Forest Act requires proven knowledge or connivance of the owner in the illegal transport of forest produce, which was not established here.
Point of Law : Section 15 gives independent power to the authority concerned, but confiscation of the article as mentioned there under, even before the guilt is completely established.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
