STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. versus MAHUA SARKAR

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 558 · Decided: 27-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 558 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
v 
MAHUA SARKAR 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2002 
FEBRUARY 27, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Indian Forest Act, 1927: ss.59A, 598 - Burden to prove 
that confiscated vehicle was used for carrying timber illegally 
c without knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his 
agent and each had taken necessary precautions against such 
use - Held: Is on the owner - Mere assertion is not sufficient -
On facts, owner failed to discharge the burden of proof -
Vehicle already released by order of High Court - Owner 
0 directed to deposit Rs. 20, 000 in place of restoration of vehicle 
- West Bengal Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1959 - Indian 
Forest (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1988 - s.59A(3). 
The Beat officer intercepted a maruti van loaded with 
hand sawn Sissoo timber. He found that four persons 
E including the driver were travelling in the vehicle. The 
timber in question was not carrying any hammer marks 
and the driver of the vehicle could not produce any 
document in respect of the possession and transportation 
of the timber. Therefore, alleged illicit timber was seized 
,.. . 
F and the driver and other passengers were arrested and 
forwarded to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. As 
'"· ~ 
required unders.59B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, notice 
was issued and served on the owner of the vehicle to 
show cause as to why the vehicle in question should not 
G be confiscated by the State of West Bengal as provided 
under s.59(A) of the Act. The owner in reply stated that 
the vehicle was taken by a family friend for a marriage 
ceremony and the driver had without his permission and 
knowledge carried the articles which later on were seized 
H 
558 
~ 
I' 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. v. 
559 
MAHUA SARKAR 
.,/ 
by the forest officials. After receipt of the reply, the stand A 
-... 
taken was verified and ultimately it was found that the 
vehicle was used for illicit procurement of timber. The 
District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the 
findings of the authorized officer. Writ petition was filed 
\ 
before the High Court. The High Court while directing 8 
release of the confiscated vehicle observed that unless 
the driver of the vehicle acted as an agent of the owner of 
r + 
the said vehicle and indulged in carrying forest produce 
illegally and that too with the knowledge and connivance 
of the owner, neither the vehicle could be confiscated nor c 
the owner could be prosecuted for such alleged offence. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contend.ed 
.that the onus was on the owner of the vehicle to establish 
that he had no knowledge about the carrying of illegal 
timber. Additionally, the statement given by the owner was D 
l f 
----
at great variance with the statement given by the driver 
and the other occupants of the vehicle at the time of 
seizure. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of sub-section (2) of s.59-8 
of Indian Forest Act makes the position clear that no order 
confiscating any tool, rope chain, boat, vehicle or cattle 
shall be made under s.59-A if the owner thereof proves to 
-
the satisfaction of the authorized officer that such tool, 
F 
" 
rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle was used in carrying 
the timber or other forest produce without the knowledge 
or connivance of the owner himself or his agent, if any, or 
the person in charge thereof and that each of them had 
taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against G 
such use. 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 would not suffice. 
There is another requirement that either he or his agent, if H 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
... 
A any, or the person in-charge thereof had taken all 
r 
reasonable and necessary precaution against such use. 
This aspect has to be established by the concerned 
person by sufficient material. [Paras 7, 9] [565-A-E] 
B 
1.2. The Forest Officer and the Appellate Authority 
clearly noted that the owner failed to establish his alleged 
lack of knowledge or connivance or taking necessary 
precaution. The High Court came to an abrupt conclusion 
~-
~ 
and held that without knowledge of the owner of the 
vehicle, driver was carrying forest produce illegally. Both 
c the forest officer and the Appellate Au

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