JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J.:---The petitioner seeks in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 1st August, 1991 and 4th February, 1995 on the ground that the findings given by both the courts below are perverse and based on no evidence thus rendering an error apparent on the face of the record. Both the orders relate to the confiscation of the petitioner's pickup for being involved in illegal transportation of Government forest produce with the knowledge of its owner. The order dated 1st August, 1991 was made by the Deputy Conservator of Forests an authorised Officer while the order dated 4th February, 1995 is of the District and Sessions Judge who in appeal has upheld the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forests. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of pickup bearing Registration No. GA-02-T-5059 which he was using for the purpose of running the business of transportation of goods. The petitioner had engaged a driver to carry on such transport. But on account of the temporary absence of the regular driver, namely, Shri Gaspar Fernandes the petitioner had engaged the services of one Shri Inacio Fernandes on temporary basis. The petitioner states that on 20th August, 1990 the said Inacio took the pickup from the petitioner's residence informing that he had been engaged to transport coconuts from Sulcorna near Rivona by a party from Margao. However the petitioner learnt at about 8.00 p.m. on the very day that the pickup had been seized by the respondent No. 2 for allegedly transporting forest produce without any valid permit. It is the petitioner's further case that he had given clear instructions to his driver not to carry any forest produce in the pickup unless a valid licence for the same was shown by the hirer of the pickup. On 14th September, 1990 the petitioner received a notice issued by respondent No. 3 calling upon him to show cause as to why his vehicle should not be confiscated under section 61-A(2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the Goa Amendment Act, 1988. On 14th September, 1990 the petitioner received a notice issued by respondent No. 3 calling upon him to show cause as to why his vehicle should not be confiscated under section 61-A(2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the Goa Amendment Act, 1988. Nowhere in the show cause notice it has been alleged that the vehicle was being habitually used for transporting forest produce unauthorisedly or illegally or that the petitioner was knowingly permitting the illegal transportation of the forest produce in the vehicle. After the seizure of the vehicle the petitioner moved an appropriate application for the custody of the said vehicle pending investigation. Petitioner was permitted the custody of the vehicle on executing a bond of Rs. 1.00 lakh for producing the same as and when required during the course of investigation. The inquiry was conducted by third respondent and after examination of the witnesses of both sides the said respondent held that the prosecution had proved its case and ordered confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner carried on appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge who by his judgment dated 4th February, 1995 rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forest. 3. Shri Sardessai learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is a non-speaking order and merely reiterates and endorses the reasons given by the third respondent. According to the learned Counsel there was no evidence available to substantiate the findings arrived at either by the respondent No. 3 or by the learned Sessions Judge and to that extent the order is perverse and amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record. Besides there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fairness during the conduct of the trial and both the courts below have overlooked the fact that the conviction under the Indian Forest Act has serious penal consequences as upon conviction the convict can be deprived of his property besides having to undergo imprisonment. Further rules of evidence were also not followed by the trial Court inasmuch as inadmissible evidence was allowed to be taken on record and relied by both the courts in order to arrive at the findings recorded against the petitioner. Further rules of evidence were also not followed by the trial Court inasmuch as inadmissible evidence was allowed to be taken on record and relied by both the courts in order to arrive at the findings recorded against the petitioner. It was also contended by learned Counsel that the show cause notice dated 14th September, 1990 is itself defective in material particulars. Therefore, basic principles of natural justice are deemed to have been violated and the petitioner has been greatly prejudiced in that regard having been caught unaware of the case. The petitioner was convicted by the third respondent for having knowledge that a forest offence was being committed by the driver of the pickup but the show cause notice did not allege existence of such fact. Respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on a panchanama as well as other documents which were neither produced at the course of the trial nor relied upon by the prosecution. The petitioner had no knowledge and there is no evidence to substantiate such evidence. It was also urged by learned Counsel that the trial Court had admitted the panchanama on the basis of the concession of the petitioner's advocate overlooking the fact that concession made by the learned Counsel cannot be used against the petitioner. It was submitted that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove their case in terms of law. 4. We have heard learned Counsel and gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. We find no perversity or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. There is no dispute that the suit vehicle was found transporting forest produce without a valid licence. The main ground of the order of confiscation is based on the fact that the petitioner was very much aware of this illegal transportation and it is the case of the prosecution that he was present in the suit vehicle when the same was detained by the forest representatives. It is true that the show cause notice does not refer to the fact of the petitioner being in the knowledge of the illegal transportation but the fact remains that the case has been processed on the basis of the petitioner being in the vehicle. Several witnesses have testified on this aspect and the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine them. There is more. Several witnesses have testified on this aspect and the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine them. There is more. The petitioner fully conscious of this position has pleaded alibi but has miserably failed to establish the same. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence available on record in detail and on this count no grievance can be made by the petitioner that the order is a non-speaking order and does only endorse the findings of the Deputy Conservator of Forests. This being the position it is obvious that the principles of natural justice have been fully complied and since the petitioner has been given a long rope in order to clear himself from the charge levelled against him. The learned Sessions Judge has given sufficient reasons to believe the prosecution evidence and disbelieve the witnesses sought to be produced by the petitioner to substantiate his plea of alibi. The findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard need not be faulted and we see no perversity in such findings. Mr. Sardessai's contention that the trial Court has unduly relied on a panchanama purportedly taken on record by concession of the learned Counsel for the petitioner when he has no right to do so as well as other documents without following the procedure in law in our view has caused no prejudice to the petitioner bearing in mind that the said evidence was not even required to be taken on record once the petitioner does not deny that his pickup was found involved in the illegal transportation of forest produce while the presence of the petitioner in the vehicle was established solely on the basis of testimonial evidence. 5. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel in the case of (M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and others)1, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 330, does not seem to take the petitioner's case any further. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid ruling has only reiterated a general principle which nobody can dispute that the application of principle of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon. Here is a case as we have already noted above that whatever evidence which was relied by the prosecution is in our judgment evidence very much permissible and available on record. Here is a case as we have already noted above that whatever evidence which was relied by the prosecution is in our judgment evidence very much permissible and available on record. The second decision cited by the learned Counsel in (Inderjit Singh v. State of Maharashtra)2, 1990(3) Crimes 779 is also not attracted and has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case. The point which was sought to be emphasized in the aforesaid judgment is that the provisions of section 61-B of the Forest Act are mandatory and the show cause notice must contain all material allegations against delinquent person on the basis of which action is proposed to be taken so that he may be in position to have a proper opportunity to meet the same. In the aforesaid case the order of confiscation of the truck was issued on the ground that the petitioner was indulging in illegal activities of cutting and transporting timber from Government forest for a long time. However the show cause notice did not allege such fact that the petitioner was indulging in such illegal activities for a long time. In the instant case the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle has been ordered because illegal forest produce was found in his pickup to the knowledge of the petitioner based on the fact that the petitioner himself was present when such pickup was seized by the forest authorities. The decision is therefore clearly distinguishable. 6. In the result we see no merits in this petition as no case has been made by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Hence rejected. There will be however no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.