The Deputy Director and Authorised Officer, Periyar West Division, Peerumedu, passed an order of confiscation dated 30.12.2011 under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, confiscating a pick-up van bearing registration No.KL 5V 2881 belonging to Biju.V.S., the respondent in this revision. Against the order of confiscation, Biju filed C.M.A.No.16 of 2012 before the court of the Additional District Judge, I- Kottayam, who by the judgment dated 10th January, 2013 set aside the order of confiscation. The State of Kerala filed this revision aggrieved by the judgment of the court below.
2. O.R.No.4 of 2011 of Pamba Forest Range was registered against one K.C.Abraham @ Kunjumon and others for a forest offence on the ground that they felled nine trees of different species from a property which was assigned to K.C.Abraham @ Kunjumon. It was alleged that over the trees standing in that property, he had no rights. A few of the logs after cutting the trees were transported in a pick up van bearing registration No.KL5V 2881 owned by Biju.V.S., the respondent herein, and driven by one Soji. Soji was also made an accused in O.R.No.4 of 2011, but the owner of the vehicle was not made an accused.
3. The respondent, the owner of the pick up van, contended that the pick up van was hired for transporting the logs and the driver took the logs to a sawmill. There was no reason to believe that a forest offence was committed since K.C.Abraham @ Kunjumon was admittedly in occupation of property in question. The owner and driver of the vehicle had no occasion to think that the trees were felled unauthorisedly or that a forest offence was committed. Section 61B(2) of the Kerala Forest Act provides that no order of confiscation can be made if the owner of the vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that he had taken all necessary precautions against misuse of the vehicle and he or his agent had no role in the commission of the offence. The appellate court held on facts that the owner of the vehicle proved the ingredients of sub-section (2) of Section 61B of the Kerala Forest Act. That finding is a finding of fact. Normally, in a Civil Revision Petition, a finding of fact arrived at by the court below would not be interfered with unless the order is vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or by any irregularity or illegality.
In the present case, as rightly held by the court below, there is no material to assume that the owner of the vehicle was a party or privy to the commission of the offence in any manner. There is also no case for the revision petitioner that the owner of the vehicle committed any forest offence and he was made an accused in O.R.No.4 of 2011. The court below rightly held that the order of confiscation is bad in law and set aside the same. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the court below.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
csl K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE