Sankarasubban, J.

This revision is filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur and the State of Kerala against the judgment of the District Judge, Thrissur in C.M.A. No. 49 of 1999 setting aside the confiscation order passed by the first petitioner. The confiscation related to a Car bearing registration No. KRB 3283 belonging to the respondent.

2. According to the petitioners, the car was involved in a forest offence relating to cutting and removal of four teak trees from 1945-46 Teak Plantation, Kundanad of Vazhani Forest Station of Machad Range on 11.3.1998. Information was received by the Forest Officials regarding commission of a forest offence on 12.3.1998. Enquiry revealed that 2 vehicles had been used for the purpose, viz., car No. KRB 3283 and lorry No. KLA 4778. The car referred to above was used for carrying the accused and the implements to the site of occurrence and back and that it had also been used as the pilot vehicle. The other vehicle is the lorry in which illicit teak timber was carried. The drivers and the owners of the vehicles and 7 other persons were implicated as accused in the case. The authorized officer found that the car is liable for confiscation. The owner of the lorry did not challenge the order of confiscation. The owner of the car challenged the confiscation proceedings.

3. Notices were issued to the owner of the car and the lorry. The owner of the car contended that the car cannot be confiscated. But the authorized officer, viz. Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur directed confiscation of the car. Against that the owner of the car filed C.M.A.No.49 of 1999 before the District Court. The District Court held that the car cannot be confiscated and hence, allowed the appeal. It is against that the present revision is filed.

4. There is no dispute that the forest offence has been omitted in as much as the teak timber was illicitly transported. In this case, we are only concerned with the question whether confiscation is legal or not. According to the Forest Authorities, the car was hired to carry workmen and the tools in the spot. There, the trees were illicitely cut and transported. Thereafter, the men and the tools were again taken in the taxi. According to the Forest Officials, the activities of the driver of the car in carrying the workers and the tools to the spot and back imputes knowledge to the driver regarding the offence that was committed. There was a case that the driver of the car connived at the commission of the offence and further the car was used for the purpose of committing the offence. It was in such circumstances that the confiscation order was passed.

5. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the report of the Range Officer, it has been stated that the final investigation report as per letter O.P.4/98 V.S. dated 7.9.1998 and referred to as item 35 in the order that the Forest Officer recommended for the confiscation of the lorry. But the Range Officer recommended for the release of Ambassador Car KRB 3283 on the ground that there was no connivance of the owner in the illicit activities. The Forest Officer also found while discussing point No. 3 as follows: "When the whole operation of illicit felling is analysed it becomes very clear that the driver was using the car for the illicit activities from the very beginning of the operation till the illicitly collected materials are delivered at the destination. The driver did get ample opportunities to escape from involving in the illicit activities. But he was willingly co-operating with the accused. From the statement recorded from the owner of the vehicle by the Range Officer and in the depositions given by him before Authorised Officer understand that the owner may be innocent of the case. But as stated in the judgment "State of Kerala v. Mathew 1955 (2) KLT 772" it is made very clear that "Restriction against confiscation contend to sub section(2) can operate only on the contribution of the three postula