Judgment:
ORDER
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17-3-07 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, affirming the order of the Authorised Officer and the Appellate Authority passed under Section 15 of the M.P. Van Upaj Vyapar (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, in brief 'the 1969 Act'.
2. Brief facts are that petitioner Rakhiyabai is the owner of Tractor Trolley No. MP 48 M 1565, which is stated to be purchased after obtaining finance from the Bank. The Tractor Trolley was stopped by the forest officers on 16-12-2003 at 11 p.m. and on inspection it was found to be carrying 40 pieces of teakwood without any transit permit and documents. Indal was driving the tractor.
3. The Authorised Officer initiated proceedings for confiscation of the Tractor on the ground of violation of Section 5 (1) of 1969 Act. The statements of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses were recorded and thereafter the Authorised Officer passed the order dated 26-12-2005 directing confiscation of the tractor trolley in question and also the teakwood, which was seized from the tractor trolley. The order of the Authorized Officer was affirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 11-3-2006 against which the petitioner preferred revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, which was dismissed by order dated 17-3-2007. Aggrieved with this order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate woman. She has purchased the tractor trolley taking loan and illegal transportation of the teakwood was done without her knowledge, therefore, she should be given the benefit of Section 15 (6) of the 1969 Act. He further submitted that there is variation in the initial statement of the driver given to the forest authorities and his statement recorded before the Authorised Officer in the confiscation proceedings.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that all the three authorities/Court have concurrently found that petitioner's tractor was involved in the illegal transportation of teakwood and that the petitioner had knowledge of such illegal transportation. He submitted that the findings recorded by the authorities/Court below are not perverse findings, therefore, no interference is required.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The findings that the tractor of the petitioner was transporting teakwood has not been seriously challenged. The teak has been declared as specified forest produce by the notification of the State of M.P., dated 10-8-1970. Section 5 (1) of the 1969 Act prohibits purchase or transportation of specified, forest produce by any person without the permission of the Govt. In the present matter, no permission of the Govt. in the form of transit pass or any other document has been produced, therefore, the violation of Section 5 (1) of the 1969 Act has rightly been found by the authorities/Court below.
8. The petitioner has also advanced arguments claiming the benefit of Section 15 (6) of the 1969 Act on the ground that the petitioner who is the owner of the tractor/trolley had no knowledge that the illegal transportation of teakwood was being done in the tractor trolley. Section 15 (6) provides as under:
15. (6) No order of confiscation under Sub-section (4) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other articles (other than specified forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (5) proves to the satisfaction of authorized officer that any such tools, vehicle, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of objects aforesaid for commission of an offence under this Act.
9. For claiming the benefit of Section 15 (6) the owner of the vehicle is required to prove to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and without knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that of reasonable and necessary precautions were taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of offences under the Act. The owner of the vehicle has to establish all these factors. Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Suresh Kumar : AIR1997SC1017 , has held as under:
9. A bare reading of Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam quoted herein above shows that the burden is on the owner to prove to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer that this vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precautions were taken by him against use of his truck for the commission of an offence under this Adhiniyam. ...The respondent owner did not produce any other material on record to discharge the burden under Sub-section (6). If this be so, it cannot be said that the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent owner has failed to satisfy the Authorized Officer that the illegal activity committed by the driver of the truck was without his knowledge or connivance. Mere ipse dixit of the respondent owner cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to discharge burden under Section 15 (6) of the Adhiniyam. In our opinion, the High Court has totally misread and misinterpreted provisions of Section 15 (6). We, therefore, cannot sustain the reasoning of the High Court and the Sessions Court as regards interpretation of Section 15 (6).
10. This Court in Sarjoo Prasad, s/o Mullu Choudhary v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2006 (2) MPLJ 65, had given the benefit of Section 15 (6) on establishing the fact that the owner had no knowledge but subsequently after considering this judgment this Court in Dhanaram Golhani v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2007 (1) MPLJ 375, held as under:
8. ...The petitioner and/or his driver have failed to ensure that the transit pass was issued for the transportation of the disputed wood and have thus, failed to take all sorts of reasonable and necessary precautions while transporting the goods. In the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Gopal Sharma (supra), it was found that the owner of the vehicle was unaware of the commission of the offence. In the case in hands, the petitioner and driver are found to have not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions. If the transportation was made without reasonable and necessary precautions, it cannot be said that the order of confiscation is in contravention of Section 15 of the said Act.
11. Supreme Court while considering the similar provisions contained in Section 59 (B) inserted in the Indian Forest Act by West Bengal Amendment Act in the case of State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Mahua Sarkar AIR 2008 SCW 1761, has held 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 in-charge 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. Thus, to claim the benefit of Section 15 (6) the petitioner is not only required to establish that she had no knowledge but she is also required to establish that her servant or agent also did not have any knowledge and they had not connived and she had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the use of vehicle against the commission of such offence.
13. It is not in dispute that Indal was driving the tractor trolley during the relevant time. In his statement before the Authorised Officer he admitted that he himself had got loaded the wet teakwood in the tractor without any threat or coercion. He had knowledge of transportation of teakwood in the tractor. The statement of petitioner Rakhiyabai is on record where she admitted that Indal was the driver of her tractor. In her statement before the Authorised Officer she has also not disclosed anything about the reasonable and necessary precautions, which she had taken against the use of the tractor trolley in the commission of the forest offence. Therefore, onus, which was placed upon the petitioner under Section 15 (6) of the Act, has not been discharged by her.
14. The Authorised Officer also on the appreciation of the evidence found that the petitioner had come to know about the seizure of tractor trolley by the forest department within two days of the seizure but for 3-4 months she did not take any steps to claim possession of the tractor trolley before the Competent Officer. The Authorised Officer has found the silent consent of the petitioner and indirect involvement of the petitioner in the commission of forest offence. He also found that the driver was voluntarily transporting the teakwood in the tractor and was involved in the commission of the forest offence. Findings of the Authorised Officer have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and also by the Revisional Court. Therefore, in view of these findings also the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 15 (6) of the Act.
15. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.