Judgment : The writ petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the proceedings of the 1 strespondent in Sae.Moo.-.No.7128/96/KU, dated 16.04.1997 and the judgment of the 2nd respondent Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli (Appellate Authority) in C.A.No.92 of 1997, dated 21.7.1997 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to handover possession of the lorry bearing Registration No.T.N-51 0990 to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims that he is a physically handicapped person. The petitioner an ex-service man is the owner of lorry bearing Registration No.T.N.510990. According to the petitioner the driver was entrusted with the lorry and the lorry was booked on 25.3.1996 for Salem for transporting powdered charcoal. According to the petitioner, as against the usual practice the driver did not return nor the lorry had returned back. On enquiry the petitioner came to know that the lorry has been seized with the sandalwood on 31.3.1996 at about 15.30 hours within the jurisdiction of Velayudhampalayam Police Station at Karur-Erode Main Road and the place of seizure being Kundanipalayam. The petitioner further states that as per the F.I.R. the lorry was found abandoned without the driver with 233 kgs of sandalwood worth about Rs.40,950 and a case has been registered by the Forest Range Officer, Thuraiyur Range in UDOR No.22 of 1996 for the alleged offence under Secs.21 (d) (e) (f), 36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Amendment Act and Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules as well as the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Forest Transit Rules. 3. The petitioner admits that he had been served with a show-cause notice by the 1st respondent issued under Sec.49-B of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The petitioner also admits that he had submitted his objections. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent after consideration of the objections had passed orders confiscating the lorry by his proceedings dated 16.4.1997. 4. Being aggrieved by the said confiscation proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 16.4.1997, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec.49-D of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The Sessions Judge by judgment, dated 21.7.1997 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the proceedings of confiscation passed by the 1st respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the said confiscation proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 16.4.1997, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec.49-D of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The Sessions Judge by judgment, dated 21.7.1997 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the proceedings of confiscation passed by the 1st respondent. Being aggrieved by the confiscation proceedings of the 1st respondent and as confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard Mr.S. James for the petitioner and Mr.Titus Jesudoss for respondents 1 and 2. On behalf of the respondents though no counter has been filed, arguments were addressed contending that no interference is called for with respect to the impugned proceedings in this writ petition and this Court sitting in Writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the two authorities below, besides pointing out there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor there is any misdirection or illegality in the impugned proceedings. 6. Mr.James, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that there is no material before the 1st respondent to hold that the lorry had been involved in transportation of the forest produce. Mr.James, also pointed out that till date there is no prosecution and accused has been apprehended. According to the petitioner he is a handicapped ex-service man He is residing at his place and he had not accompanied the lorry. As such there is no material before the 1st respondent to conclude that the petitioner had allowed the lorry to use for transporting sandalwood and the order of confiscation is not warranted. 7. On the other hand the Government Pleader (Forest) contended that the burden of proof is on the petitioner which the petitioner had failed to discharge as has been found by the two authorities below and this court will not interfere on the facts of the case. Further the Government Advocate produced a photo of the lorry T.N.51-0990 and pointed out that the petitioner had written the word ‘POLICE’ in bold and dark colour on the front top of the lorry with a view to give an impression that the lorry had been engaged by police and this has been done by the petitioner only with ulterior motive. It was also pointed out that the word ‘EX MAN’ had been mixed with the word ‘POLICE’ in the back ground of dark letters. However this is not going to be of much use. 8. Sec.49-A provides for confiscation by Forest Authorities in certain cases and admittedly the 1st respondent is the officer authorised to exercise the powers under Sec.49-A and B. It is not disputed that a show cause notice has been given to the petitioner and after submission of his objections the I st respondent had passed order of confiscation and there is no violation of principles of natural justice or the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no material at all to implicate the petitioner and there is no justification to order confiscation of his lorry while pointing out that except that he is the owner of the lorry he had no connection whatsoever with the transportation of the sandalwood. In this connection the Government Pleader drew the attention of the Court to Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.49 which reads thus: ‘49-B (2): Without prejudice to the provisions ofsub-Sec.(I) no order confiscating any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made under Sec.49-Aif the owner of thetool, rope, chain, boat, vehicleor cattle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying scheduled timberwithout the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself his agent, if any,and the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessaryprecautions against such use. (Italics supplied) 9. It has been pointed out that his driver who is the petitioners ‘Agent’ and merely claiming that the petitioner had no knowledge or connivance with the transportation of sandalwood would not be sufficient. The person in-charge of the vehicle namely who is the agent of the petitioner should not have sufficient knowledge or connivance with the transportation of sandalwood. The onus of proof is on the petitioner to prove that without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge of his agent or his connivance and despite their taking of reasonable and necessary precaution against misuse the vehicle has been used. The onus of proof is on the petitioner to prove that without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge of his agent or his connivance and despite their taking of reasonable and necessary precaution against misuse the vehicle has been used. This is not the case here and the findings of the Appellate Authority is more than sufficient to hold that the petitioner had not discharged the burden cast on him in terms of Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.49-B. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 1995 dated 4.12.1995. Swamy, Chief Justice sitting for the Division Bench held thus: “The latter portion of the proviso places burden upon the owner of the vehicle. It is not enough for the owner of the vehicle to prove that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance. He is also further required to prove that the agent or the driver under whose possession, the vehicle was being kept, had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. In the instance case, it is not in dispute that the vehicle was seized when it was transporting illegally sandalwood. In such cases the aforesaid proviso comes into operation. The burden shifts on the owner of the vehicle to prove by convincing evidence that not only he had no knowledge of or had not connivance with the use of the vehicle for illegal purpose, but his agent or the person in charge of the vehicle had taken all the reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The owner has not adduced any evidence to show that the driver of the vehicle took necessary and reasonable precautions to prevent the use of the vehicle for illegally transporting the sandalwood. The fact that the driver was in the custody of the Police, did not in any way prevent the owner to examine him and to adduce any other evidence to prove that reasonable and necessary precautions were taken by the person in charge of the vehicle. The object of the proviso is to ensure that the owner of the vehicle does not escape by merely pointing out that he had no knowledge. The object of the proviso is to ensure that the owner of the vehicle does not escape by merely pointing out that he had no knowledge. He being the owner of the vehicle, it is his responsibility to ensure that no only he himself had taken care to see that the vehicle was not used for any unauthorised purpose, but also the person placed in charge of the vehicle did not use the vehicle or allow it to be used or connived at use for such purpose. This provision of law requires to be scrupulously observed in order to prevent the smuggling of sandalwood.” In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar State of Madhya Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar, (1997) 2 Supreme To-day 64 the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the scope of identical provision and also the scope of burden cast on the owner of the vehicle. S.P. Kurdukar, J. speaking for the Bench held thus: ‘It is needless to reproduce entire Sec.15 since the High Court has mainly relied upon sub-Sec.(6) which reads as under: “(6) - No order of confiscation under sub-Sec.(4) of any tools, Vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other articles (Other than specified forest produced seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-Sec.(5) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of objects aforesaid for commission of an offence under this Act.” (reproduced from the judgment of the High Court) A bare reading of sub-Sec.(6) of Sec.15 of the Adhiniyam quoted hereinabove shows that the burden is on the owner to prove to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that his vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precautions were taken by him against use of his truck for the commission of an offence under this Adhiniyam. During confiscation proceedings, the Competent Authority recorded the statements of various forest employees including the officers and permitted the respondent to cross-examine them but he failed to avail of the said opportunity. During confiscation proceedings, the Competent Authority recorded the statements of various forest employees including the officers and permitted the respondent to cross-examine them but he failed to avail of the said opportunity. The forest employees when tried to stop the truck, one of the inmates of the truck tried to scare these forest employees by firing a shot from the fire arm and the thereafter escaped from the truck to avoid being caught. This would unmistakably show that the truck driver and other inmates were involved in illegal activities forbidden by Adhiniyam. It also cannot be overlooked that the concealment of 120 logs of teak wood was arranged perfectly by putting tarpolin over the logs to avoid its detection. These facts were held proved by the Forest Authorities and on these proved facts, the Forest Authorities concluded that the driver of the truck in connivance with the other inmates of the truck was carrying the wooden logs illegally. Under sub-Sec.(6) burden is cast upon the owner of the truck to prove that his truck was used for illegal activities without his knowledge and not with his connivance. The statement of the owner of the truck was recorded by the Competent Authority and the explanation sought to be given by him did not find favour with the said authority. The respondent owner did not produce any other material on record to discharge the burden under sub-Sec.(6). If this be so, it cannot be said that the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority committed any error in coming to driver of the truck was without his knowledge or connivance. Mere ipse dixit of the respondent owner cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to discharge burden under 15(6) of the Adhiniyam. In our opinion, the High Court had totally misread and misinterpreted provisions of Sec. 15(6). We, therefore, cannot sustain the reasoning of the High Court and the Sessions Court as regards interpretation of Sec. 15(6). 11. In the light of the said two binding precedents, this Court holds that the order of confiscation passed by the 1st respondent and confirmed by the Sessions Court, the Appellate Authority is not vitiated and there is sufficient material before the 1st respondent to hold that the petitioners lorry has been used for transportation of sandalwood and the lorry had been seized with the sandalwood. Besides it is pointed out that the driver abandoned the lorry on seeing the officials and stopped the lorry. In the circumstances this Court holds that no case has been made out for interference and the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently W.M.P.Nos.23656 and 23657 are also dismissed.