( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India owner of the vehicle in question has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Valsad at Navsari, in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1988, on 13/04/1992, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forest bearing No. K/prch/11/2374/ 87-88 dated 8-3-1988 and dismissed the appeal of the owner. The owner has thus prayed for quashing and setting aside the confiscation order of the vehicle in question, which is a truck bearing Registration No. GRP 3866. Brief facts :

( 2 ) ON 22-6-1987 the petitioner sent the truck with the driver from Gondal to Valsad. On its way back from Valsad the driver gave truck without the knowledge of the petitioner (owner) to one Mr. Rameshbhai for transporting the wood to Navsari at the rate of Rs. 1300. 00 by way of hire charges. The truck was confiscated from a place near Sara Reserve Forest by the authorities alongwith four pieces of Sag wood worth about Rs. 4,000. 00. The petitioner preferred aforesaid appeal under Sec. 61 (D) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Indian Forest (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1983, hereinafter referred to as the Act. That appeal was rejected by order dated 23-1-1990, resulting in filing of a Special Criminal Application No. 819 of 1990 before this Court. That application was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the same afresh, as it was decided in the absence of the petitioners learned Advocate. The appeal was heard afresh and again decided against the petitioner (owner of the truck) as stated above. Point No. 2 framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge would read as under: whether the appellant has been able to show that the driver had transported the sag wood in the truck in question without the knowledge and connivance of the owner of the truck as per Sec. 61 (B) (2) of the Indian Forest Act ? the learned Addl. Sessions Judge replied the question in the affirmative in so far as the petitioner-Truck owner was concerned, but held that the driver could not show that the Sag wood was transported in the truck in question without his (drivers) knowledge and connivance.

( 3 ) IN this connection the learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed and held as under with regard to the provision contained in Sec. 61 (B) of the act : when the raid was laid the petitioner being the owner of the truck was not personally present. It also appeared from the record that the truck was not used for transportation of wood when it started from Gondal and that it was also not meant for such use. On the contrary, it has been observed by the learned judge, the truck was loaded with the goods being transported and after the trip for such transportation was over, the driver had entered into a transaction of earning some rent by permitting the truck to be used for transporting wood. Under such circumstances, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the transportation of wood in the truck in question was neither with knowledge nor connivance of the owner. He, however, interpreted the provision contained in Sec. 61 (B) (1) and (2) of the Act. He held that since the driver could not show want of his knowledge or want of his connivance for the transportation of wood, the truck was liable to be confiscated even qua the owner of the truck, i. e. , the petitioner. Thus, according to the learned Judge the drivers knowledge and connivance was referable to the owners right under the said provision. This precisely is the question which requires consideration and which would determine the fate of this petition.

( 4 ) IT has been submitted by Miss Sangita Thakkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the provision contained in sub-sec. (1), proviso thereto in particular, of Sec. 61b of the Act confers a specific right to the registered owner of a motor vehicle of being