JUDGMENT - M.S. RANE, J. :---The petitioner - State of Maharashtra in this petition challenges the order dated 6th September, 1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1991 arising from the order dated 30th November, 1990 passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest (hereinafter in brief referred to as A.C.F.), Dist. Dhule in Divisional Offence No. Toranmal C/57/90-91. The A.C.F. has passed the order under section 61-A(3) of Indian Forest Act, 1977 (hereinafter in brief referred to as the said Act) confiscating the vehicle involved in the matter herein belonging to the respondent and the Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order under section 61-D(1) of the said Act, reversing the said order of A.C.F. 2. Few relevant facts : The Range Forest Officers, Toranmal intercepted one Canter being No. MCY-3930 which was passing along Dhakgaon road and proceeding towards Shahada in Dhule district. There were four inmates including Driver and Cleaner in the said Canter namely; 1. Salumodid Nasiruddin Shaikh, 2. Akiluddin Nasiruddin Shaikh, 3. Sunjay Kissan Kamble, 4. Sunil Ananda Nikam. Number 3 and 4 were respectively Driver and Cleaner thereof. 3. The Range Forest Officers checked the said Canter and found containing Teak Square lumbers measuing 86 in number and 2.785 cu.m. of the value of Rs. 27,850/- which was hidden under bananas in the said Canter. The Range Forest Officers under Panchanama seized the Teak wood as also the Canter as the teak wood was being carried illicitly, after felling it from the reserved forest. 4. Then the report was lodged as required under the provisions of the said Act and the application was presented under section 61-A(1) for confiscation of the vehicle in question. 5. It is noticed that thereafter all the four inmates named above were duly chargesheeted who pleaded guilty for the offences. Their statements were also recorded. 6. The material disclose that the 1st respondent was the owner of the Canter in question. The proceedings for confiscation were commenced and the 1st respondent was served with the notice who appeared before the learned A.C.F. 7. The learned A.C.F. after hearing the claims put forth by respondent and the petitioner proceeded to pass the order of confiscation of the material seized from the Canter so also the Canter by his order dated 30th November, 1990. 8. The learned A.C.F. after hearing the claims put forth by respondent and the petitioner proceeded to pass the order of confiscation of the material seized from the Canter so also the Canter by his order dated 30th November, 1990. 8. Being dissatisfied by the said order of the learned A.C.F. the respondent herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 9/90 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar who by his Judgment dated 6th September, 1991 impugned in this petition allowed the appeal partly holding that the order so far relating to the confiscation of the said Canter was illegal and consequently set aside the same. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge have approached this Court in the writ petition. 10. Heard Mr. Patil for the petitioner and Mr. Kanade for the respondent. Mr. Patil took the Court through both the orders of - the A.C.F. and the Additional Sessions Judge so also referred to the relevant provisions in particular section 52, 61-A and 61-D of said Act. He submitted that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is on face of it illegal. In asmuch as he pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has upheld the findings rendered in the order passed by learned A.C.F. that the Canter in question was of the ownership of the respondent and that the Driver - Sunjay Kissan Kamble and Cleaner - Sunil Ananda Nikam of the same were his employees. It is also in the evidence that at the relevant time the said Canter was hired from the respondent for the purpose of a trip to Dhule where the same came to be intercepted as noticed earlier. It is therefore submitted that it is clearly established that the Driver and the Cleaner of the said Canter were the servants of the owner i.e. the respondent. The respondent as the owner of the Canter has also given the said Canter on hire on consideration. In the circumstances, Mr. Patil asserts that the Driver and the Cleaner of the Canter being the servants, the respondent as the Master and Owner cannot plead ignorance and shirk his responsibility. He submits that the Master will be responsible and liable for any act or omission of his servants. 11. As against this, Mr. In the circumstances, Mr. Patil asserts that the Driver and the Cleaner of the Canter being the servants, the respondent as the Master and Owner cannot plead ignorance and shirk his responsibility. He submits that the Master will be responsible and liable for any act or omission of his servants. 11. As against this, Mr. Kanade the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that knowledge that the Canter in question was to be used for transporting or conveying the forbidden goods cannot be imputed to the owner - the 1st respondent. 12. However, considering the facts and circumstances as obtained in the matter herein and having regard to the fact that the Driver and the Cleaner of the Canter at the relevant time when the Canter was intercepted containing the forbidden goods were the servants of the 1st respondent, the argument advanced that the Master had no knowledge is not sustainable and cannot be accepted. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Patil is right in his contention that when the ownership of the Canter is not in dispute and further that the Driver and Cleaner were employees/servants of the respondent at the relevant time then the responsibility of the 1st respondent as a owner has been clearly proved. 13. On going through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and as noticed earlier, there being no dispute about the facts which have been briefly adverted to hereinabove, he has indulged in conjuctures and surmises not warranted and justified in the proven circumstances. His observations and comments over the statements of Driver and Cleaner of the Canter, to say the least, are wholly unfounded and contrary to the statutory provisions in particular section 61-B(2) which speaks of the knowledge of "agent the person in charge of the vehicle" and have wider implications. It further provides that all such persons, which include agents, servants, etc. to take reasonable and necessary precautions against such use of the vehicle. Thus it would be clear that the responsibility is also extended to the agent and servant of the owner of a vehicle. In the cirucmstances the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are unsustainable. 14. In the circumstances, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, Dist. Dhule impugned in this petition cannot be sustained and same is liable to be set aside. 15. In the cirucmstances the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are unsustainable. 14. In the circumstances, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, Dist. Dhule impugned in this petition cannot be sustained and same is liable to be set aside. 15. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer (a)-and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, Dist. Dhule in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1991 on 6th September, 1991 is quashed and set aside and the order of the learned Assistant Conservator of Forest, Dhule Division Dhule dated 30-11-1990 is confirmed. C.C. expedited. Appeal allowed. *****