The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent burden of proof on the owner to prove that the vehicle was not involved in the offence and the necessity of taking all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.

State is the petitioner herein. The judgment in C.A. No. 239 of 2002 dated 14.8.2002 passed by the second respondent, setting aside the confiscation of the vehicle involved in a forest offence is under challenge.

2. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:

The first respondent is the owner of a TATA SUMO bearing Registration No. TN-27-W-0343. On 21.2.2002, the vehicle was seized by the Forest Officials for having transported 47 kgs of Sandalwood in Analamalai Reserved Forests, Amaravathy Range. Since there was no valid licence or permit to transport sandalwood, being a Schedule Timber as per the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (hereinafter it is referred to as “the Act”), the vehicle along with the sandalwood were seized by the Forest Officials and a case was registered in STOR. No. 4 of 2002 under Section 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1967 and Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules; 1970. When the vehicle was intercepted by the Forest Officials, all the accused persons escaped from the scene of occurrence. The driver, Mr. Shanmugam surrendered before the Forest Ranger on the next day and confessed that one Mr. Sivalingam of Salem had engaged the vehicle on hire and he agreed for transportation of sandalwood for more money. The vehicle and seized materials were produced before the Authorised Officer for further action as contemplated under the Act.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that as sandalwood is a forest produce, it attracts the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and as per Section 41 of the Act, the Forest Officer is entitled to seize the forest produce, if it is transported illegally. Thereafter, Authorised Officer has issued a show cause notice under Section 49(b)(2) of the Act, on 18.4.2002, to the first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle as well as Shanmugam from whom the vehicle was seized. Both of them received the show cause notice and the first respondent, Mr. Venkatesh, owner of the vehicle, appeared before the authorised officer and stated that the vehicle, was given to his driver, Mr. Shanmugam for private use and that some smugglers have involved him in the transport of sandalwood and that the owner was not involved in the offence. The driver of the vehicle also appeared and stated that the offence had occurred without the knowledge of his owner. The first respondent has filed his objections on 8.5.2002 for the confiscation proceedings initiated by the Authorised Officer.

4. The petitioner has further submitted that as per Section 49(B)(2) of the Act, it is the bounden duty of the owner to prove to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence without his knowledge or connivance, his agent if any and the person, who is in charge of the vehicle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted that it is not enough, if the owner merely pleads innocence of the offence, but he has to substantiate his claim with tangible evidence. Placing reliance on a decision in W.A. No. 1296 of 1995, dated 4.12.1995, the petitioner has submitted that the burden is on the owner to prove that the vehicle is not involved in the offence and, that, he cannot escape from the liability, by merely saying that he is not involved in the offence and has no knowledge about the same.

5. It is further submitted that on the basis of the admission of the driver and considering other relevant materials, the Authorised Officer prima facie satisfied that a forest offence had been committed in respect of the vehicle with the connivance of the driver of the vehicle, from whose custody the vehicle was seized. Since the driver had failed to take all reasonable and necessary precautions against the illegal transport of sandalwood, the Authorised Officer has rightly passed the order of confis