Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1105 (AP)

Forest Range Officer v. Durga Auto Financiers

2008-12-26

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT :- The second respondent is the owner of a vehicle bearing No. APD 3697. In the patrolling conducted by the Special Party, Forest Department, Khammam, on 13.12.1991, the lorry was found to be loaded with teak timber. A case under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) was registered and the proceedings were initiated before the Authorised Officer, Khammam. Through his order, dated 14.08.1998, the Authorised Officer directed confiscation of the lorry as well as the timber. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.44 of 1998 in the Court of the District Judge, Khammam. The appeal was partly allowed, through judgment, dated 03.01.2001. It was ordered that half of the value of the seized lorry be confiscated. This writ petition is filed against the said order. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Forests and Sri Sai Ganagadhar Chamarthy, the learned counsel for the respondents. The second respondent did not claim ownership of the timber which was found loaded in the lorry. It emerges that there did not exist valid permits for the timber. The Authorised Officer directed confiscation of the seized timber as well as the lorry. The appeal was preferred in respect of confiscation of the vehicle alone. The lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and directed release of the lorry subject to confiscation of half of the value. Section 44(2-A) of the Act is clear in its purport. It empowers the Authorised Officer to direct confiscation of the forest produce that is not covered by valid permits, as well as vehicle or receptacle used for transport thereof. The Authorised Officer found that the vehicle was used in transporting illicit timber and accordingly directed confiscation thereof. In case the appellate Court was not satisfied about the reasons assigned by the Authorised Officer, it ought to have set aside the order of confiscation. It did not find any irregularity in the order or defect in the reasoning given by the Authorised Officer. It did not set aside any findings. The only basis for which the order of confiscation was modified is that it was a first offence, on the part of the second respondent. Though Section 44(2-E) of the Act confers power on the District Court to interfere with the order of confiscation and to pass any order as it thinks fit, it has to be read in the context of Section 44(2-A). Though Section 44(2-E) of the Act confers power on the District Court to interfere with the order of confiscation and to pass any order as it thinks fit, it has to be read in the context of Section 44(2-A). The Section provides for confiscation of the vehicle. In case the appellate Court finds that there is no basis for confiscation, it has only to set aside the order of confiscation. A direction for confiscation of half of the value would lead to contradiction in terms. On the one hand, the confiscation is upheld and on the other its vigour watered down. The provisions of the Act do not contemplate such a situation. On facts also, the record discloses that the second respondent did not come to the witness box, much less, did he prove his lack of knowledge of the illegal use of the vehicle or precautions on his part to ensure that the vehicle is not put to any illicit use. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.