( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal arises out of the order of the learned Single judge dismissing the Writ Petition at the stage of admission.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are :- on receiving some information, the Deputy Range Officer and the assistant Commercial Tax Officer chased and found the lorry bearing no. A. A. T. 2175 at 4-30 A. M. on 21-10-78 at the Petrol Bunk of T. Nagaiah chetty and Sons on the outskirts of Anantapur. It was found containing 820 sandal wood billets and stems and 900 small roots and pieces in all numbering 1720 and 31 vegetable bags. The statement of the Driver of the lorry, kama) Singh was recorded in the presence of Panchayatdars. The Driver stated that he loaded the lorry on 20-10-1978 at Bangalore with vegetables aad reached Madanapalle in the night at 1-30 A. M. and one Krishnappa, loaded the lorry with gunny bags containing the sandal wood billets. The driver stated that the owner of the lorry Pritam Singh knows Krishnappa and the said Krishnappa loaded the lorry with the consent of the owner with sandal wood. The value of the Sandal wood was estimated at Rs. 42,000/ -. The vehicle and the forest produce were produced before the First Class magistrate, Madanapalle on 23-10-1978. The 31 bags of vegetables were auctioned as they were perishable. A panchanama was prepared at madanapalle-Bangalore road where the Sat. dal wood was loaded. The statements of three coolies Chintahamanu, Subbanna and Venkataramana were recorded. The coolies stated that Krisbnappa engaged them as coolies and they loaded the lorry with Sandal wood and received their wages. The coolies also gave statements before the Judicial First Class Magistrate.

( 3 ) THE owner of the lorry filed a petition on 4-11-1978 under section 44 (2-C) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 for return of the lorry stating that he has no knowledge and he had not connived with anyone in the transport of Sandal wood in his lorry.

( 4 ) THE Divisional Forest Officer was prima faice satisfied that a forest offence was committed. He issued notice to Pritam Singh, the owner of the lorry on 30-11-1978 asking him to show-cause why the lorry should not be confiscated. After holding an enquiry, the Divisional Forest Officer found that the owner used the lorry for the transport of illicit Sandal wood and connived with the lorry Driver and order confiscation of the Sandal wood billets together with the lorry under Section 44 (2-A) of the Act.

( 5 ) THE owner Pritam Singh filed an appeal before the District Judge. Cbittoor. The main contention before the Appellate. Authority was that he had no knowledge of the illegal transport of Sandal wood and that he had not connived at the same.

( 6 ) THE learned District Judge, accepted the plea of the owner on the ground that there is no tangible material to suggest that the owner of the lorry bad knowledge of the illegal transport.

( 7 ) THE Forest Range Officer, Madanapalle filed the Writ Petition challenging the prder of the District Judge. The Writ Petition was dismissed at the stage of admission holding that the reasons given by the District judge in support of his conclusion that the owner has no knowledge are sound and no interference is called for. It is the validity of this order that is challenged in this Writ Appeal.

( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant mainly contended that the knowledge and connivance in the commission of offence by the driver is sufficient and even if the owner had no knowledge, be wold not be entitled to the benefit of Section 44 (2-C) of the Aet. He rolied upon a, decision of our learned brother Gangadhara Rao, J-, in Shaik rahim vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.

( 9 ) ON the other hand, it is submitted by the Counsel for the first respondent that even if the vehicle was found to have been used in the commission of offence, if it is established that the owner or his agent or the person in charge had no knowledge or not connived at it, the vehicle cannot be confis