The owner must prove absence of knowledge or connivance for confiscation under the Indian Forest Act, which was not demonstrated in this case.

JUDGEMENT

Rule. Learned APP Mr. B.D.Desai waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2.The present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the judgement date 27th July, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad, whereby the order dated 6th May, 2004 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Valsad (North) of confiscation of vehicle in question has been confirmed.

3.Brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision Application are as under:

Upon an intelligence received by police officers, on 21st February, 2003, while patrolling on national highway no. 8 at 21.30 hours near Amrutsar Hotel on the side of the main road, a truck bearing registration no. DL 1 GB 4001 was lying unattended. It was found that the said truck was loaded with wooden logs of Kher. Neither the owner, nor driver nor cleaner of the said truck was found nearby. The weight of wooden logs was approximately 9580 kgs. and the same was seized alongwith truck by drawing a necessary panchnama.

Thereafter, an intimation was given to Delhi Transport Authority on 26th March, 2003 and from that office vide letter dated 9th April, 2003, the owner of the truck i.e. the present applicant was informed to contact forest officer at Valsad. The applicant informed the Forest Officer, Valsad, for the first time, on 20th May, 2003 that the truck in question was assigned to the driver of the applicant who is working with him since last 12 months who is also working as per the order and direction of the applicant and was sent to Ulhasnagar with goods to be unloaded. The said truck had reached Ulhasnagar on 19th February, 2003. Thereafter, the driver was informed to load other goods from Dhanraj Golden Transport company, but instead of doing so, the driver of the applicant might have loaded forest produce and this is how the truck was confiscated. Thereafter the present applicant was given a notice under section 61 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") on 30th May, 2003. No reply was given by the applicant, but thereafter, the applicant has given two statements, firstly on 9th June, 2003 to the effect that the driver of the truck is working since last more than 12 months and is very obedient but the offence has not been committed at the behest of the applicant. Neither the truck driver nor the truck cleaner has come forward to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, nor the applicant who is the employer of the driver has co-operated in the inquiry and whereabouts of the driver is not given by the applicant. Even in the second statement, the applicant has maintained his say. This is how defence has been raised by the applicant which is nothing but a bare assertion of facts. The Deputy Conservator of Forests has thereafter passed an order of confiscation of truck under section 61A (As per Gujarat amendment) of the Act.

The said order was challenged by preferring Criminal Appeal NO. 11 of 2004 before Sessions Court, Valsad which has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 27th July, 2004. Hence, the present Revision Application has been filed by the applicant truck owner.

4.The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no such offence as alleged by the respondents has ever been committed by the applicant with the help of truck in question bearing registration no.

DL 1 GB 4001 and the said offence, if at all, is ultimately proved to have been committed, then there is no knowledge of the owner of the truck nor there is any connivanc