Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gurudev Singh Rai vs Authorised Officer-Cum-Asst. ... on 17 February, 1992
13. Mr. G. K. Mishra, learned Counsel advances an alternative argument with the prayer to impose fine in lieu of confiscation in view of the ratio in the case of Gurudev Singh Rai v. Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Rairakhol Division and Anr. 1992 (I) OLR 305.
State Of Jharkhand And Anr vs Govind Singh on 3 December, 2004
We do not find any force in that submission in as much as the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above cited decision has been impliedly over-ruled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Anr. v. Govind Singh . Their Lordships of the Apex Court have been pleased to propound to give a plain meaning on ifs face value-to a statutory provision and not to impose fine in lieu of confiscation when the relevant provision of law relating to confiscation does not specifically authorize to impose fine in lieu of confiscation. Thus, contention of the opposite party members in the above aspects is not acceptable.
Section 4 in The Orissa Forest Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Orissa Forest Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Assistant Forest Conservator & Ors vs Sharad Ramchandra Kale on 27 November, 1997
Decision of the Apex Court in Sharad Ramachandra Kala (supra) is distinguishable because of failure to prove on record knowledge of the owner to" attract vicarious liability. We thus find that the factual finding and the conclusion recorded by Learned District Judge is non-sustainable.
The Orissa Forest Act, 1972
State Of Karnataka vs K. Krishnan on 17 August, 2000
In the case of K. Krishnan (supra) it has been emphasized that:
Malatilata Samal And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 10 July, 2002
(from paragraph-3)
Analysing the principle of vicarious liability, their Lordships further held that,
...if the forest offence is committed even with the knowledge or connivance of the driver of the vehicle, the same would be liable to confiscation even though the owner might not have any knowledge or connivance in the matter. The view taken by the District Judge that connivance of the driver would be a separate matter to be decided in a separate proceeding, as observed in paragraph 4 of the impugned order is not correct,
(from paragraph-4)
Similarly, view has also been expressed in the case of Malatilata Samal (supra). Evidence of the O.P.Ws. also does not exonerate the owner of the truck from the vicarious liability of illegal transportation of the logs and wood. Learned District Judge committed the aforesaid illegality because of casual approach to the evidence on record and not properly following the provision of law on 'vicarious liability'.