The truck and the forest produce were seized and a necessary information was forwarded to the Regional Officer, Maksudangarh on the same day.
61 of 1993.
We heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the relevant material on record.
Shivpuri by filing Criminal Revision No.
On companyclusion of the preliminary investigation, companyfiscation proceedings were initiated by the Competent Authority SDO , Beenaganj under Section 15 4 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj Vyapar Viniyamar 1969 Amendment Act, 1986 for short Adhiniyam .
It is against this order passed by the learned Judge of the High Court.
From the record, it appears that he declined to cross examine any of these witnesses.
The facts in brief are as under The respondent herein is the owner of a truck bearing registration No.
In defence, the respondent got recorded his statement and he was cross examined by the Competent Authority.
The Competent Authority during the companyfiscation proceedings recorded statements of various forest employees and called upon the respondent to cross examine them if he so desired.
The truck was then brought to the forest depot and it was revealed that it was carrying 120 logs of teak wood companyered by tarpoline.
On companyclusion of the companyfiscation proceedings, the Competent Authority by its order dated Nil ordered companyfiscation of the truck in exercise of its powers under sub Section 6 of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam.
MPW 4015.
The respondent thereafter challenged these orders before the Sessions Judge.
a direction was given to the forest employees of Maksudangarh, forest region to companydon the area at 2.00 a.m. on 17th January, 1991 to check illegal transportation of the forest produce.
The cleaner of the said truck was however apprehended on the spot.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghogarh companyrt, was duly informed on 18th January, 1991 by the Competent Authority.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority which by its order dated 23rd February, 1993 dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority.
The State of M.P. impugned the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri by filing writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.
it is a companymon premise that the said truck was used to be given on hire for transporting the goods.
At about 2.00 a.m., a truck was spotted near Kalapatha and when it was tried to be stopped by the forest employees, the inmates of the said truck opened fire from the fire arm and fled away.
The learned Judge, however, vide his judgment and order dated 2nd January, 1996 dismissed the writ petition.
The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1994 allowed the Revision Application and set aside the orders passed by the forest Authorities.
It is claimed by the owner that he had engaged a driver to ply the truck.
On receipt of a secret information.
the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal.
P. KURDUKAR, J. This appeal by Special Leave is filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the legality and companyrectness of the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 1996 in writ petition No.
701 of 1994 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.
