Assistant Forest Conservator & Ors. Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 1989.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.88 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. W.P.No. 104 of 1988)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.88 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. W.P.No. 104 of 1988)
Petitioner: Assistant Forest Conservator & Ors.
Respondent: Sharad Ramchandra Kale
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 1989.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.88 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. W.P.No. 104 of 1988)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.88 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. W.P.No. 104 of 1988)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & V.N. KHARE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 27, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. D.M. Nargolkar and S.M. Jadhav, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. V.A. Bobde, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Alamjit S. Nand, Mr. S. Mudaliar, Mr. Alamjit Chauhan, Advocates with him for the Re-spondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Forest Act
Forest Offence – Confiscation of truck – Held no evidence to establish that trick owner had any knowledge about truck being used to carry forest produce in contravention of Forest Act – No interference – Appeal dismissed.
Held:
The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding.(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.:
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 104 of 1988.
2. The truck of the respondent was ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, as it was found involved in commission of a forest offence. That order was confirmed by the Conservator of Forest. Against his order, the respondent pre-ferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but it was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding.
3. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 104 of 1988.
2. The truck of the respondent was ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, as it was found involved in commission of a forest offence. That order was confirmed by the Conservator of Forest. Against his order, the respondent pre-ferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but it was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding.
3. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
