IMPORTANT POINT
For the purpose of discharging the burden cast on the vehicle owner u/s 71-B(2)of Karnataka Forest Act. it is not merely enough if the owner says that his vehicle had been misused without his knowledge or connivance but in addition he is bound to show that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such misuse.

ORDER

K. Ramachandriah, J. - Respondent is the registered owner-cum-driver of a Tempo bearing Registration No. CNE 3495. It was seized by the Range Forest Officer, Hiregutti, in the presence of two panch witnesses and his staff at about 2-30 p.m. on 14-12-1988 near a place called Kashigudde on Hillur road near Kumta as 20 cut teak wood pieces measuring in all 34 c. feet or O.969 Cms. were being transported in it without any licence or permit to transport out of the forest area and, therefore, a forest offence had been committed in respect of the said teak wood pieces. After seizing the teak wood pieces and the Tempo under a mahazar, the Range Forest Officer, Hiregutti reported the matter to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Honavar Division, Honavar, who is also the Authorised Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, (for short 'the Act'). The said Authorised Officer issued a notice under Section 71-B(1) of the Act to the respondent calling upon him to show cause why the seized jeep bearing No. CNE 3495 together with the forest produce that was being illicitly transported in it should not be confiscated to the State Government under Section 71-A of the Act. The response to that show cause notice, respondent submitted his 'written reply dated 3-3-1989 explaining the circumstances under which he had taken the Tempo for hire to one Ganapathy Huliyappa Naik of Hillur village for transporting some wooden articles on the assurance of paying reasonable hire charges and also being assured by the said Ganapathy Huliyappa Naik that he was in possession of a pass and that he will also come in that Tempo along with the pass and, as a matter of fact, he was travelling in that Tempo along with the teak wood pieces when it was stopped and checked by the Range Forest Officer and it is only at that stage that he came to know that the said Ganapathy Huliyappa Naik had no permit or licence in respect of the teakwood pieces that were being transported in his Tempo. Respondent further submitted in his written statement that he has not committed any forest offence as he had taken all the reasonable care to prevent the use of his vehicle for the commission of any forest offence.

2. In view of the said reply of the respondent, the Authorised Officer held an enquiry in the course of which he recorded the statements of the Range Forest Officer by name B.G. Naik as P.W. 1, one Krishna Rama Naik, an independent witness as P.W. 2 and two other panch witnesses by name Rajendra Govinda Naik and Bommaiah Govinda Naik as P.Ws. 3 and 4. By way of defence, respondent got himself examined as D.W. 1 and one other witness by name Hammanna Devanna Naik as D.W.2.

3. On an appreciation of the said defence of the respondent and the statements of the witnesses examined in the course of the enquiry, the Authorised Officer by order dated 31-5-1989 ordered confiscation of the Tempo as he was satisfied that the forest offence had been committed by transporting in the Tempo 20 cut teakwood pieces measuring 0,969 Cms. and the respondent owner cum-driver of that Tempo had no discharged the burden cast on him under Section 71-B(2) of the Act that the Tempo was used for carrying the teakwood pieces without his knowledge or connivance and he had taken all reasonable and-necessary precaution against such user of his Tempo.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Authorised Officer, respondent preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Karwar, under Section 71-D of the Act.

5. By order dated 8-11-1989 in Cr. A. No. 42/89, the learned Sessions Judge, Karwar, has allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation order of the Authorised Officer as he was of the view that the respondent-appellant had successfully discharged the burden required under Section 71-B(2) of the Act.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, Karwar, the State has preferred this Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (fo