STATE OF M.P. versus SURESH KUMAR

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 07-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
... 
SURESH KUMAR 
FEBRUARY 7, 1997 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ] 
M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Act, 1969: Section 15(6). 
c 
Forests-Search and seizure-Seizure of carrier-Confiscation of truck 
carrying forest produce illegally-Trnck was carrying 120 logs of teakwood 
covered by tarpaulin and when it was tried to be stopped by fore st employees, 
the inmates of the trnck had opened fire from fireann, and fled away-Forest 
authority concluded that driver of trnck in connivance with other inmates was 
carrying the logs illegally-Held: Burden on owner of truck to prove that his 
D truck was not used in illegal activities without his knowledge or con-
11ivance-Owner of truck failed to produce any other material to discharge the 
burden under S.15(6)-ln the circumstances of the case, competent authority 
and the appellate authority committed no error in coming to the conclusion 
that the owner had failed to satisfy the authorised officer that the illegal 
E 
activity committed by the driver of the trnck was without his knowledge or 
connivance-Mere ipse dixit of the owner cannot be said to be sufficient 
evidence to discharge burden under S.15( 6}-Contention that the owner was 
not provided with proper assistance and, the ref ore, he was deprived of the 
benefit of Art.39( a) has no substance since it was not the case of the owner 
before the forest officers or the courts below that he applied for grant of more 
F time to seek legal advice and assistance but the same was denied-Constitu-
tion of India, 1950, Art.39(a). 
The respondent was the owner of a truck, which was used to be given 
on hire for transporting goods. The owner had engaged a driver to ply the 
truck. On the day of occurrence, the forest area was cordoned to check 
G illegal transportation of the forest produce. When the said truck was tried 
to be stopped by the forest employees, the inmates of the said truck opened 
fire from the firearm and fled away. The truck was then brought to the 
forest depot and it was revealed that it was carrying 120 logs of teakwood 
covered by tarpaulin. Confiscation proceedings were initiated by the Com-
H petent Authority under Section 15(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj 
1030 
'
+ 
,_ _ 
_ .,. 
"' 
1 ' 
J
STATE v. SURESH KR. 
1031 
(Vyapar Yinivaman) Act, 1969. The Competent Authority during the con-
A 
fiscation proceedings recorded statements of various forest employees and 
called upon the respondent to cross-examine them if he so desired. How-
ever, the respondent declined to cross-examine any of the witnesses. On 
I 
conclusion of the confiscation proceedings, the Competent Authority or-
dered confiscation of the truck under Section 15(6) of the Adhiniyam. 
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority, the · 
respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, which was 
dismissed. The Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the Com-
petent Authority. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by 
B 
the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
C 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the respondent 
was not provided with proper assistance and, therefore, he was deprived 
of the benefit of Article 39(a) of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. A bare reading of Section 15(6) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Act, 1969 shows that the burden is on the 
owner to prove to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that his vehi"le 
, 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 the Adhiniyam. During confiscation 
proceedings, the Competent Authority recorded the statements of various 
forest employees including the officers and permitted the respondent to 
cross-examine them but he failed to avail of the said opportunity. The 
forest employees when tried to stop the truck, one of the inmates of the 
truck tried to scare the forest employees by firing a shot fi;om the firearm 
and thereafter escaped from the truck to avoid being caught. This would 
unmistakably show that the truck driver and other inmates were involved 
D 
E 
F 
in illegal activities forbidden by the Adhiniyam. It also cannot be over-
looked that the concealment of 120 logs of teakwood was arranged perfectly 
by putting tarpaulin over the logs to avoid its detection. These facts were G 
held proved by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.