When vehicle seized in forest offence should not be released on supratnama?

 In that view of the matter, merely because the petitioner had made certain representations to the respondent-authorities for release of his vehicle whereby he has accepted his guilt and just because the petitioner has further clarified that the alleged commission of offence in question by his driver was because of the bona fide act of his driver, does not confer any right in him much less under the provisions of Indian Forest Act to claim release of vehicle immediately unless the inquiry as was proposed and conducted in the matter is completed. We are fortified in our view in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan, reported in MANU/SC/0512/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 2729. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar case, in paragraphs '7' and '8' observed thus:

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has submitted and we agree that the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for releasing the forest produce or the property used in the commission of the forest offence, the Authorised Officer or the Appellate Authority has to specify the reasons which justify such release, apparently, prima facie excluding the possibility of such forest produce or the property being confiscated ultimately. Generally, therefore, any forest produce and the tools, boats, vehicles, catties, etc., used in the commission of the forest offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should not be released. This, however, does not debar the officers and the authorities under the Act including the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders under the circumstances of each case but only after assigning valid reasons. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect the mother-earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and then-produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come.

Citation: 2014(4)FLT821, 2014(5)MhLj286,2016 CRLJ(NOC)76 BOM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

W.P. No. 3805 of 2002

Decided On: 02.04.2014

 Sanjay Namdeorao  Suryawanshi   Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.V. Gangapurwala and N.W. Sambre, JJ.

Print Page

When confiscation of vehicle seized in forest offence is permissible?

 The grievance of the Petitioner that she was not given
sufficient opportunity is baseless in as much as she was given notice as

contemplated under section 61B of the said Act and she had appeared
before the authorised Officer.
10. Her stand before the authorised Officer was that she was
not in any manner responsible for the activities of Harshad Thakare as
the vehicle was in exclusive possession of Harshad Thakare. Learned
counsel Mr. Shaikh has submitted that the vehilce was being plied as
taxi and Harshad Thakare was not supposed to use the vehicle for any
illegal purposes. It was submitted that since the vehicle was in
exclusive possession of Harshad Thakare the Petitioner cannot be held
vicariously liable for the activities of Harshad Thakare.
11. The Petitioner had failed to produce any document either
before the authorised Officer or before the Appellate Court to prove
that the vehicle was given to Harshad Thakare on hire. The liability of
the registered owner of the vehicle under the said Act is absolute
liability and burden cast upon the registered owner cannot be
discharged by preponderance of probabilities. It is not the law that
the registered owner has to probabilise his case. The law on the point
is very well settled that registered owner of the vehicle has to prove
his case before the authorised Officer that the vehicle was used for

forest offence without his knowledge and connivance. Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the matter of
State of West Bengal Vs. Mahua Sarkar Reported at AIR 2008 SC 1591 has said at para 9 as
under :“
9. The requirement is mandatory that the owner
has to prove that he had no knowledge or had not
connived. It is a matter which is within his
knowledge. Mere assertion without anything else
will not suffice. There is another requirement that
either he or his agent, if any, or the person incharge
thereof had taken all reasonable and
necessary precaution against such use. This aspect
has to be established by the concerned person by
sufficient material. As noted above, mere assertion
in that regard could not be sufficient.”
12. As such, assertion of the Petitioner that vehicle was given
to Harshad Thakare on hire basis cannot be accepted unless there is
sufficient material to support the assertion. There was no oral
evidence or any documentary proof either before the authorised
Officer or before the Appellate Court to prove the assertions of the
Petitioner. If there was no agreement in writing, the Petitioner at least
could have examined some witnesses to show that vehicle was being
plied by Harshad Thakare exclusively as a passenger vehicle. As such,
in my opinion the Petitioner has failed to discharge burden cast upon her. The order of the authorised Officer therefore was absolutely
correct.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3678 OF 2013
Mrs. Kavita Sandip Tandel,

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
The Authorized Officer &
Assistant Conservator of Forest, Wild
Life Sanctuary Tansa, Shahapur,
DistrictThane.

CORAM:M.
L. TAHALIYANI, J.
DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2015.
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2760

Print Page