1. Petitioner claims to be tine owner of the truck bearing registration no B.P.P. 7491. The said truck was seized on 9.11.1994 at Village Bahera, Police Station Amas in the district of Gaya, carrying Khair wood. On the basis of the report given by the chowkidar in relation to the aforesaid incident Amas P.S. Case no. 67 of 1994 was registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and 33/52 of the Forest Act. Fact of the seizure of the truck carrying Khair wood, which is admittedly forest produce was made known to the Divisional Forest Officer and on that basis he initiated a proceeding for confiscation of the truck as provided under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990. Petitioner appeared before the Divisional Forest Officer stating therein that he had purchased the said truck oh hire purchase basis with a further plea that he had no knowledge about the transportation of Khair wood on the truck. The Divisional Forest Officer by its order dated 6.1.1997 directed for confiscation of the truck. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and the District Magistrate, Gaya by order dated 13.12.1999 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid petitioner preferred Rev. Case no.1 of 2000 before the Secretary Environment and Forest Department, who by order dated 18.5.2002 dismissed the revision application.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders petitioner has preferred this application and prays for quashing of the orders of Divisional Forest Officer, District Magistrate and the Secretary.

3. Mr. Madhukar Krishna Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge that in the truck in question forest produce was being carried and as such the truck does not deserve to be confiscated under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator and ors. V/s. Sharad Ramchandra Kale, 1998 (1) SCC 48.

"This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in Writ petition No. 104 of 1988.

The truck of the respondent was ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, as it was found involved in commission of a forest offence. That order was confirmed by the Conservator of Forests. Against his order, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but it was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding.

We, therefore, dismiss this appeal."

4. Mr. Amarnath Singh S.C.8 appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of the provisions made under Section 52 (5) of the Act it is for the owner of the vehicle to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle in question was used without his knowledge and connivance and further he had taken necessary precaution against the use of the vehicle for the commission of the offence. He submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner ever pleaded or proved to the satisfaction of the authority that the truck was used without his knowledge or connivance and he had taken necessary precaution against the use of the truck. He submits that in view of the clear language of section 52 (5) of the Act onus was on the petitioner. In support of his plea he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. V/s. Suresh Kumar, 1997 (9) SCC 647 and my attention h