ORIENT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD.,

ORIENT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD., VS.
RANGE FOREST OFFICER, AMPARA AND
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUPREME COURT
TILAKAWARDANE, J.
EKANAYAKE, J. AND
PRIYASATH DEP, PC., J.
SC APPEAL NO. 120/2011
SC(SPL)LA/92/2011
CA (PHC) APN NO.26/2011
PHC (AMPARA) REVISION APPLICATION
HC/AMP/REVISION/343/2009
MC AMPARA NO. 31773
OCTOBER 21ST, 2013

Forest Ordinance amended by 13 of 1982, 84 of 1988, 23 of 1995, 05 of 2009 - Section 40(1) - forfeiture of timber, tools, vehicles used in the commission of offences under the Ordinance - Section 25(1)-Penalties, breach of any of the provisions of or regulations made under the Act. - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 433 (A). - Rule of Audi Alteram Partem Registered owner - Absolute owner

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the High Court. The High Court affirmed the order of forfeiture of a vehicle made by the learned Magistrate of Ampara under Section 40 of the Forest Ordinance. The Appellant is a Finance Company which under a lease agreement let the vehicle bearing No. EPLE 3471 to Anura Kumara who became the registered owner of the vehicle. The said Anura Kumara was charged in the Magistrate's Court for transporting timber without a permit under Section 25(1) read with Section 40 of the Forest Ordinance. He pleaded guilty to the charges. After an inquiry the Court made order confiscating the vehicle under section 40 of the Forest Ordinance.

The Appellant who is the absolute owner of the vehicle, appealed against the judgment of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal without issuing notice dismissed the petition.

Held:

1. Before an order for forfeiture is made the owner should be given an opportunity to show cause. If the owner on balance probability

satisfies the Court that he had taken precautions to prevent the commission of the offence or the offence was committed without his knowledge nor was he privy to the commission of the offence, the vehicle has to be released to the owner.

2. When it comes to showing cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated, only the person who was in possession and control of the vehicle could give evidence to the effect that the ffence was committed without his knowledge and he had taken necessary steps to prevent the commission of the offence.

Per Priyasath Dep PCJ:

After the conclusion of the case, if the vehicle is not confiscated, the vehicle should be released to the absolute owner and not to the registered owner or any other claimant. Under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, the absolute owner though entitled to the possession of the vehicle, could obtain the possession of the vehicle only if the Court decides to release the vehicle but not as of right.

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Cases referred to:

1. Manawadu Vs.Attorney General- (1987) 2 Sri L.R.30

2. Mercantile Investment Ltd. Vs. Mohamed Mauloom and Others - (1998) 3 Sri L.R. 32

3. The Finance (Private) Limited Vs.Agampodi Mahapedige Priiyantha Chandana and others - S.C. Appeal No. 105 A/2008 decided on 30.09.2010

Asthika Devendra for the Appellant

Thusitha Mudalige, S.S.C. for the Attorney General

Cur.adv.vult.

December 10, 2013
PRIYASATH DEP. PC., J.

This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 28.04.2011 which affirmed the judgment of the

High Court of Ampara. The High Court affirmed the order of forfeiture of a vehicle made by the learned Magistrate of Ampara under Section 40 of the Forest Ordinance as amended by Acts numbers 13 of 1982, 84 of 1988 and 23 of 1995.

The Petitioner - Petitioner - Petitioner - Appellant (here­ inafter referred to as the Appellant) is a Finance Company which under a lease agreement let the vehicle bearing No. EPLE 3471 to D.P. Anura Kumara who became the registered owner of the vehicle. The said Anu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document