Sunil Kumar Arora is the owner of the truck, bearing Registration No.DL-1GB-2311. The appellant is the constituted attorney of the said owner.

2. The said truck with the consignment of iron wool and cotton was on the way from Jamshedpur to Delhi. On 2nd June, 1998, the said truck was checked at Chhatarpur Forest Check, Naka in Plamau district, now in Jharkhand State. In the said consignment, 210 K.G. of Katha was also concealed and seized from the truck. The driver and one Gouri Shankar Prasad, who is said to be owner of the said Katha, were arrested. The statements of the driver and said Gouri Shankar Prasad were taken at the spot. According to the driver, he had stopped the truck near a line hotel for taking meal over Manika on Ranchi-Daltonganj Road. Said Gouri Shankar Prasad insisted to load Katha on assurance of paying fare for transporting the same to Varanasi.

3. Prosecution report was prepared on that basis. It was alleged that Gouri Shankar Prasad is a habitual trader of illegal Katha and he in connivance of the truck driver loaded the same on the truck fixing fare of Rs.3,500/-. The illegal trading of Katha caused revenue loss to the Government. In the said report, it was clearly mentioned that in the said illegal act, the truck owner-Sunil Kumar Arora has got no concern at all. The Hindi version of the report is reproduced herein below:

“IS APRADH ME TRUCK MALIK SHRI SUNIL ARORA KA KISI PRAKAR KA SAMBANDH NAHI HAI.”

4. After the seizure of the truck along with the consignment, the truck driver and said Gauri Shankar Prasad were arrested and a criminal case was registered against them.

5. Under the provisions of the Bihar Forest Act, a confiscation proceeding was separately initiated being CF Case No.134 of 1998. The appellant was also arrayed as a party. On notice he had appeared and filed reply, stating, inter alia, that he is the owner of the truck and he had no complicity in the incident. He had neither any knowledge nor connivance in the said illegal deal. The driver has made clear statement that he had loaded Katha on the way on insistence of Gauri Shankar when he had stopped at a line hotel near Manka. The statement was made by the driver before the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, but he included the name of the owner stating that though the owner was not present he cannot be absolved from the consequence of illegal act of his servant and agent. He, therefore, passed order for confiscation of the Katha as also the said truck, bearing Registration No.DL-1GB-2311.

6. The appellant preferred appeal against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner, Plamau, being Confiscation Appeal No.XV/62 of 1998-99. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the truck driver and other materials on record as also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator & Ors. Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale [1998(1) PLJR 21 (SC)], the Deputy Commissioner held that the owner of the truck was not at fault. He cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the driver, if he has committed an offence without his knowledge and consent. He further held that there is no evidence to prove the knowledge and consent of the owner in the crime. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, North Division, and directed to release the truck on furnishing security bond of Rs.2.00 lacs and on condition to produce the vehicle, in question, as and when directed.

7. The forest official preferred revision against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner. The revisional authority set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored the order of the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer.

8. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of the revisional authority, challenged the order before this Court in writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.2703 of 2001.

9. The said writ pet