ORDER

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Registered Owner Claimant-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) instituted this appeal against the judgment of the Learned High Court Judge of the Provincial High Court of Western Province, holding in Colombo in case No. 100/2015 where the Learned High Court Judge the Learned High Court Judge affirmed the order of the Learned Magistrate of Maligakanda in case No. 8792/15 where the Learned Magistrate has confiscated a lorry bearing registration No. WP LA 0576 consequent to a vehicle inquiry as provided for by Section 40 (1) of the Forest ordinance.

Complainant-Respondent-Respondent instituted proceedings in the Magistrate Court of Maligakanda bearing case number 8792/15 against the accused above named for committing an offence under the Forest Ordinance by transporting three logs of jack timber without a permit. Both accused pleaded guilty to the charges against them, and they were sentenced. Following their conviction, the Learned Magistrate initiated an inquiry into the confiscation of the vehicle, which had been seized due to it being used in the commission of the offence.

During the course of the vehicle inquiry, evidence was led on behalf of the Appellant , of the registered owner, her father Lewkebandara Sripala, and a representative of the company identified as the absolute owner of the vehicle. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, written submissions were tendered on behalf of the Appellant, contending that the charge sheet was unlawful and, as such, the vehicle was not liable for confiscation. Thereafter, on 5^th June 2015, the Learned Magistrate delivered an order and confiscated the vehicle and the trailer.

Aggrieved by the said order, Appellant has filed the revision application in the High Court of Colombo, where the Learned High Court Judge dismissed the said revision application. The Appellant has preferred this instant appeal seeking to set aside the order of the Learned High Court Judge.

Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in their written submission. 1. The learned High Court Judge erred in law and fact by affirming the confiscation order, which was based on an invalid charge sheet and, consequently, an invalid conviction.

2. The learned High Court Judge erred in law in holding that the appellant was estopped from challenging the validity of the charge sheet after the accused had pleaded guilty, without considering that the appellant was not a party to the case at the time the plea of guilty was tendered in the Magistrate Court.

3. The learned High Court Judge erred in fact in holding that the appellant had failed to prove that she had taken all necessary precautions to prevent the use of the vehicle for the commission of the offence.

In an inquiry of this nature, particularly following the amendment to the Forest Ordinance by Act No. 65 of 2009, the sole matter for consideration by the learned Magistrate is whether the owner had taken all necessary precautions to prevent the use of such tools, vehicles, implements, cattle, or machinery, as the case may be, in the commission of the offence.

Section 40 (1) of the said Act , as amended by Act No 65 of 2009; Section 26 Section 40 of the principal enactment is hereby amended by the repeal of subsection (1) thereof and the substitution therefore of the following.

“Where any person is convicted of a forest offence.

(A) All timber or forest produce which is not the property of the State in respect of which the offence has been committed, and (B) All tools, vehicles, implements, cattle and machines used in committing such offence Shall, in addition to any other punishment specified for such offence, be confiscated by order of the convicting magistrate.

Provided that in any where the owner of such tools, implements and machines used in the commission of such offence, is a third party, no order of Confiscation shall be made if such owner proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he had taken all precautions to