S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the original order dated 10th August, 2001 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO for short), Garhwa in Confiscation Case No. 21/2000; Appellate order dated 25th of February, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa in Confiscation Appeal No. 19/2001 and the revisional order dated 4th December, 2002 passed by the Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand in Revision Case No. (C)-11/2002.

In the confiscation case, the Respondent DFO, seized the Truck No. BR- 15G-1140, apart from forest produce, which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.

2. The petitioner, who is the owner of the Truck, in question, has challenged the orders on amongst the following grounds :

(i) The DFO, Garhwa had no jurisdiction to confiscate the truck, in question, having not delegated with the power.

(ii) The notice of confiscation issued to the petitioner and others is not proper, the authority having not disclosed the fact that forest offence has been committed.

(iii) The owner of the truck cannot be held guilty, in the present case, the truck having hired by an agent.

3. So far as the first question is concerned, the learned Advocate General relied on an Order No. Forest Sale - 48/90-8- F.P. dated 2nd January, 1991, whereby all the DFOs of the State of Bihar, including the DFOs now fall within the territory of State of Jharkhand were delegated with power under Sub-Section (5) of Section 52 of the Bihar Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 (Bihar Act, 9 of 1990).

Therefore, the first ground raised cannot be accepted and is answered in favour of the Respondents State.

4. So far as the second ground that no proper notice was given to the petitioner and others intimating that a forest offence has been committed is concerned, for determination of such issue, one may look into the notice, contained in letter No. 3482 dated 8th December, 2000 (Annexure-3). The said notice has been issued from the Court of authorized officer-cum-DFO, Garhwa, South Division. In the subject matter of notice, it was clearly mentioned that the notice has been issued in view of Offence Report No. 62P dated 5th December, 2000 submitted by Range Officer of Forest. Ranka (East). It was mentioned that step has been taken for confiscation of Truck No. BR-15G-1140 as it was carrying forest produce. Thereby, it is evident that the offence related to carrying forest produce was mentioned in the notice and petitioner and others were informed and asked to submit show cause, why the forest produce and the vehicle in question, be not confiscated.

The aforesaid notice Is completely, in accordance with law, will also be evident from the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, wherein he took the plea of no knowledge of committing offence under Forest Act and requested for release of truck.

Thus, the second ground as raised is also decided against the petitioner.

5. The last submission made and the ground as taken is that the truck was hired by an agent, cannot absolve the petitioner from his duty to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized Officer that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance, as stipulated under Sub-Section (5) to Section 52 of Bihar Act 9 of 1990 (State Amendment), and quoted hereunder :

"No order of confiscation under Sub-Section (3) of any tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorized officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the, knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence."

6. The petitioner also cannot derive any advantage of order passed b