Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1085 (MP)

Subhash Agrawal v. Sub-Divisional Forest Officer

2000-09-30

A.M.SAPRE

body2000
JUDGMENT Challenge in this petition filed under Art. 226/227 of Constitution of India, is to an order dated 25.1.2000, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr. Revision No. 316/98 Annexure P-5. Facts in brief to appreciate the issue involved in the writ, which is essentially 4 under Article 227, need mention. Petitioner is the registered owner of one matador bearing No. MP 14-B-9769. The petitioner had employed one driver Sitaram for plying this vehicle. At times the petitioner used to give this vehicle on hire to one Sharma Travel. On 15.2.1997, at about 2.30 p.m., this vehicle, while moving on Indore-Nemawar road, was checked by Police authorities. In checking, the Police found about 64 pieces of Sagwan planks valuing Rs. 9,600/-. The Police accordingly seized the Sagwan planks under section 102 of CrPC, and also arrested driver Sitaram and one Mohanlal who was found sitting in the matador, under section 41 of CrPC, on 18.2.1997. The Police seized the matador also. This was then followed by a show cause on 1.4.1997 by the respondent No.1 under section 15 of the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, to petitioner, he being the owner of vehicle in question, and also to two others for showing cause why the said vehicle (matador) and Sagwan planks be not confiscated. The petitioner replied to the show cause and while giving some story in effect, denied the commission of offence. In substance, the case of petitioner in reply was that even if the offence was alleged to have been committed, then the same was not to his knowledge and that he was not at all aware of the same nor it was committed with his connivance or on his instructions. In other words, the petitioner pleaded total innocence and ignorance of the said commission of offence. That on 7.11.1997, the respondent No.1 (Sub-Divisional) Forest Officer) rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner. In other words, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer upheld the confiscation and seizure and held petitioner guilty of the offence. Moreover, in discussion, he recorded a following finding: The petitioner then felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a revision to Sessions Court under section 15(B) of the Act. By impugned order dated 25.1.2000, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision. It is this order which is impugned in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Moreover, in discussion, he recorded a following finding: The petitioner then felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a revision to Sessions Court under section 15(B) of the Act. By impugned order dated 25.1.2000, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision. It is this order which is impugned in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Heard Shri S.R. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Verma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of case. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed by getting rid of the two orders of the authorities. Perusal of first order of Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Authorised Officer in clear terms recorded a finding in favour of petitioner which is extracted above. In order to hold petitioner guilty for the offence in question, it was necessary for the authorities to record a definite finding that petitioner had the knowledge of the offence or/and that the offence was committed due to his connivance. Indeed these findings are prerequisite sine qua non for holding the petitioner who was the owner of the vehicle, guilty for the offence. As observed supra, the authority (respondent No.1), on the other hand, recorded a finding in favour of petitioner and yet proceeded to hold the petitioner to have committed offence. In my opinion, in view of the said finding which was based on appreciation of facts and evidence led, the verdict should have been in favour of petitioner. Even the revisionary Court committed an error. The learned Sessions Judge was not deciding the issue before him as an appellate Court to draw conclusion and inference on factual matter. He was exercising his revisionary powers for examining the legality of order passed by. authorised officer. The learned Sessions Judge should have, therefore, confined its inquiry into the well-known parameters of revision rather than as an appellate Court. Perusal of impugned order of Sessions Court in revision clearly indicates that learned Sessions Judge did not attach any importance to the finding recorded by the authorised officer in favour of petitioner referred supra and instead of either setting it aside or modifying it, went into the factual aspect of the case de nove and then affirmed the order of Authorised Officer. In my opinion, therefore, both the orders impugned in this petition exhibit errors on their face. In my opinion, therefore, both the orders impugned in this petition exhibit errors on their face. In my supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227, the errors of law which are apparent on the face of record and which are based on the findings already recorded, can always be corrected. In my opinion, it is not necessary for me to examine· the factual aspect of the case because on the factual finding recorded by the authorised officer, the petitioner had to be discharged of the charges levelled against him under section 15 ibid. Accordingly, and in view of aforesaid discussion, petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned orders Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-5 are quashed by writ of certiorari. No costs.