Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1048 (MP)

Lalit Kumar Arya v. State of M. P.

2012-10-11

R.S.JHA

body2012
Judgment R.S. Jha, J.;- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 26.06.2004 passed the Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) Tawdi District Betul whereby the jeep belonging to the petitioner had been directed to be confiscated for offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and the order dated 11.02.2005 passed by the Conservator of Forest in appeal affirming the said order as well as the order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Criminal Revision No. 35/05 dated 09.06.2005 dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge about the fact that the jeep No. CPZ 3822 belonging to the petitioner had been used by his cousin brothers namely, Anil Kumar Machiwar and Adip Kumar Machiwar for commission of the forest offence and in such circumstances, in view of the provisions of section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act, the vehicle of the petitioner be released and the impugned orders directing confiscation of the vehicle be quashed. 2. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no wood/timber was seized from the petitioner's vehicle and therefore, the impugned order directing confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle deserves to be quashed, as it has not been established that the petitioner's vehicle was involved in the commission of the forest offence. 3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that in the night on 15.08.2002 at 1.30 AM, the jeep belonging to the petitioner got stuck in the marshy area of compartment no. 1455 of Tawdi protected forest area. Anil Kumar Machiwar and Adip Kumar Machiwar who were in the vehicle, requested for help from Balwant Singh and other villagers to push the vehicle out of the marshy area. While doing so, they saw that about 8 pieces of timber were lying in the back of the jeep and accordingly they informed the forest authority, who registered case no. 230/01 on 16.08.2002 in the early morning at 5.30/6:00 AM under section 33(1)(a) and section 52(a) of the Indian Forest Act and section 5 of the M.P. Vanopaj Vyapar Viniyam. The evidence was recorded by the authority and thereafter by order dated 26.06.2004, the S.D.O. (Forest), who is the competent authority, ordered confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner. 230/01 on 16.08.2002 in the early morning at 5.30/6:00 AM under section 33(1)(a) and section 52(a) of the Indian Forest Act and section 5 of the M.P. Vanopaj Vyapar Viniyam. The evidence was recorded by the authority and thereafter by order dated 26.06.2004, the S.D.O. (Forest), who is the competent authority, ordered confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Conservator of Forest which was dismissed by order dated 11.02.2005 against which the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul which has also been dismissed by order dated 09.06.2005. 4. From a perusal of the record of the case and the impugned order it is clear that there is a concurrent finding of facts by all the three authorities against the petitioner in respect of the fact that the offence of cutting timber in protected forest area has been found to have been committed by the petitioner and to the effect the petitioner has failed to establish that the vehicle had been used by Anil Kumar and Adip Kumar, his cousin brothers without his knowledge. 5. 5. Having perused the record as well as the impugned orders, I find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the authorities and court or in the appreciation of the evidence by them particularly, in view of the fact that witness Balwant Singh has given a categorical statement to the effect that the wood was seen inside the vehicle when it was being pushed out from the marshy area but later on when the forest authorities reached the spot the wood had been removed from the jeep and was lying nearby the jeep and the facts and evidence on record clearly establishing that there were stumps of the tree which had been cut; there were tyre marks in the entire area nearby the stumps of trees indicating that the wood had been cut by Anil Kumar and Adip Kumar; that at the relevant time the vehicle did not bear any number plate; that after seizure of the vehicle on 16.08.2002, the petitioner who claims himself to be the owner, did not claim the jeep inspite of three public notices; that the story regarding taking away the vehicle without the knowledge of the petitioner could not be established on account of the fact that the petitioner did not file any complaint to the effect that his vehicle had been missing from the repair shop for 15-20 days and that he did not appear to claim the vehicle inspite of three public notices nor did he lodge any F.I.R. in that respect before the Police Authorities. 6. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner also did not take any precautionary measure or steps to ensure that his vehicle would not be used for the commission of forest offence which is necessary for a person claiming innocence as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 1017 . 7. As there is a concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner by two authorities and the court which does not suffer from any illegality or perversity as stated above, and infact finds support from the evidence and facts available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition, filed by the petitioner, being meritless, is accordingly dismissed.