TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (11) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent No. 4 approached this Court in W.P. No. 9460 of 1993, in which a direction was issued to the petitioner to release the vehicle in favour of respondent No. 4 subject to respondent No. 4 paying a sum of Rs. 20,000. 2. The petitioner states that when respondent No. 4 having taken release of the vehicle, failed to turn up and pay the instalments, they made elaborate enquiries and came to know that the vehicle for purchase of which loan was sanctioned to respondent No. 4 was involved in a forest offence and was confiscated by respondent No. 2-Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, and against the orders of confiscation, respondent No. 4 had filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 50 of 1994 before the District Court, Warangal, and sought for release of the vehicle. Respondent No. 4, simultaneously, appears to have also filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 2339 of 1994 before this Court, and a learned single Judge of this Court vide his orders dated 6-4-1994, while disposing of the said writ petition directed release of the vehicle subject to certain conditions, which respondent No. 4 failed to comply, and as such, the confiscated vehicle remained with respondent No. 2. The petitioner appears to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was involved in a forest offence, the same was confiscated by respondent No. 2, and no exception can be taken thereto. Though respondent No. 4 assailed the orders of confiscation in appeal in C.M.A. No. 50 of 1994 before the District Court, Warangal, respondent No. 4, in spite of orders being passed by the District Judge, while disposing of the said appeal, to appear before respondent No. 2 has failed to appear, and in those circumstances, the orders of confiscation passed by respondent No. 2 remained without any change, and in view of the interim orders of stay dated 8-2-1995, granted by this Court pending disposal of the writ petition, the confiscated vehicle was not put to sale. The learned Government Pleader submitted that having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. v. Government of A.P. AIR 2001 AP 270 and a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mirza Ramza Ali v. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise 2003 (3) ALT 562, the contention of the petitioner that having regard to the language used in section 44(2C) of the Forest Act, 1967, the petitioner should be treated as owner of the vehicle, for it has financed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest produce without his knowledge or connivance, cannot seek the release of the vehicle irrespective of the fact whether the forest offence was committed with the knowledge or connivance of the hirer. Further, the provisions of sub-section (2C) makes it abundantly clear that the burden to prove to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer that the vehicle was used in carrying the contraband forest produce without his knowledge or connivance is on the owner of the vehicle and not on the Authorized Officer". (p. 270) 9. It therefore, becomes clear that though the petitioner provided finance for purchase of the vehicle, it cannot be treated as owner of the vehicle, for it is the person alone who is in possession of the vehicle, can be treated as owner of the vehicle in case of an agreement of hypothecation. In the instant case, no doubt the financed vehicle is hypothecated to the petitioner but when the offence under the Forest Act, was committed, the vehicle was in possession of the respondent No. 4, who purchased the vehicle availing finance from the petitioner. 10. A learned Single Judge of this Court in a recent judgment rendered in Mirza Ramza Ali's case (supra), considered a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that having regard to the provisions of section 46B of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and the phraseology "owner of the vehicle" employed in section 44(2C) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, the petitioner, who is a financier, has to be treated as owner of the vehicle for the purpose release of the confiscated vehicle in their favour, for effect the vehicle to sale, and realize the proceeds realized through such sale, for appropriation of their dues recoverable from respondent No. 4, to whom they granted loan for purchase of the vehicle, cannot be accepted. 12. The Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan AIR 2000 SC 2729 while considering the question of release of forest produce/property used in the commission of forest offences, arising out of Karnataka Forest Act, 1964 held thus : "The provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to....