Under Section 59B(2) of the West Bengal Amendment of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the owner of a vehicle confiscated for a forest offense must prove lack of knowledge or connivance not only on their part but also on the part of their agent or the person in charge of the vehicle.

( 1 ) THIS Revisional application is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Appeal No. 48 of 1991 reversing the order passed by the Authorised Officer in Case No. 6/cob of 1989-90.

( 2 ) THE case is one relating to confiscation and order for sale of a truck bearing No. WGA 4324 on the allegation that the same was used in commission of a Forest offence and as such became liable to confiscation in terms of section 59b of the West Bengal Amendment of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

( 3 ) MR. Bhattacharjee has appeared in support of the Revisional application on behalf of the Authorised Officer, Cooch Behar Forest Division, Jalpaiguri who is the petitioner before this Court and Mr. Abhijit Banerjee has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents, who claim to be owners of the involved truck.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional District Judge based his order primarily on the ground that the facts and circumstances of the case show that the owners did not have any knowledge or connivance with the drives of the vehicle in respect of the illegal carriage of forest produce which constituted an offence. On the basis of an alleged letter of authorisation disclosed on behalf of the owners and the terms embodied therein, the learned Additional District Judge also found that the owners took reasonable and necessary precaution so that this vehicle might not be involved in carrying unlawful goods. On the basis of the aforesaid findings and applying the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2289 of 1989 dated 17th of September, 1990, learned Additional District Judge quashed the order of confiscation and directed restoration of the motor vehicle to the owners on execution of a Bond.

( 5 ) BOTH the learned advocates have analysed the relevant section to justify their own submissions. Accordingly, we feel that it would be useful to quote section 59b, sub-section (2) of the Indian Forest Act as applicable to West Bengal which we quote as hereinbelow :"59b. Issue of notice before confiscation.- (1 ). . . . . . . . (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), no order confiscating any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made under section 59a if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that such tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle, or cattle was used in carrying the timber or other forest produce without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent, if any or the person in charge thereof and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. " (Emphasis is ours)

( 6 ) UPON a reading of the said section, it appears to us that the approach adopted by the learned Additional District Judge, in passing the impugned appellate order is vitiated by a wrong conception, and wrong interpretation and construction of the section. We have purposely emphasized by underlining the relevant parts of the section in question a reading whereof clearly establishes that the owner, apart from proving the user of the offending article or vehicle without his knowledge or connivance must also prove to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that his agent or the person in charge of the vehicle or the article in question had also no knowledge nor had connived in the user of the same in commission of a Forest offence and further that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The word 'or' preceding 'his agent' and the word 'each' preceding 'of them' clearly indicate that the owner's liability was not restricted in the manner as has been interpreted by the learned Additional District Judge. He has also to prove the statutory requisites as far as his agent or person in charge of the vehicle is concerned. In default of such proof, the vehicle could not enjoy exemption from confiscation. The Division Benc