ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J. 1. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed (a) competent authority and Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, South Sagar Annexure P-9, (b) appellate authority-cum-Conservator of Forest, Sagar Circle Annexure P-10 and (c) the Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Revision No. 218/2000, dated 15-12-2000 Annexure P-11 has preferred this petition for quashment of the aforesaid orders and for release of the truck seized and forfeited by the respondents under Section 14 of M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Vinimay) Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred as 'Act'). 2. The facts of this case are as under :-- The petitioner is truck owner of Truck bearing MP 15- D/0320 (hereinafter referred to as 'the truck'). On 8-11-2000 at about 11.45 p.m., the truck was carrying 11 bags of tendu leaves. It is alleged that Ashok Kumar Sahu and Rakesh Sahu loaded the aforesaid bags of tendu leaves from Begumganj to be brought to Sagar. At the relevant time, petitioner was not in the truck and the driver, Komal Chand loaded the aforesaid bags of tendu leaves in the truck. One Amol Ahirwar, the conductor of the truck, was also in the truck. The checking party when checked the truck found that out of 11 bags of tendu leaves, the persons who took the aforesaid bags were having a valid transit pass for transportation of 5 bags of tendu leaves authorising transport from Begumganj to Barkhuwana. The authorised authority seized the tendu leaves and the truck. A Panchnama and seizure memo were prepared on the spot. A.P.O.R. was also recorded and the matter was reported to the authorised officer for confiscation of the seized articles. The authorised officer intimated the matter to the C.J.M. and other authorities. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and another to the driver. On 19-1-2000, the petitioner filed reply in which he stated that the aforesaid truck was purchased by him on 20-12-1999 and he was having no knowledge about the transportation of such tendu leaves. After seizure of the truck, the driver informed him that the two persons claiming themselves to be Bidi Sattedars and showing the transit pass loaded the bags which he had allowed despite strict instructions of the petitioner. The driver loaded the tendu leaves for his personal gain and had not given the freight of the goods to the petitioner. After seizure of the truck, the driver informed him that the two persons claiming themselves to be Bidi Sattedars and showing the transit pass loaded the bags which he had allowed despite strict instructions of the petitioner. The driver loaded the tendu leaves for his personal gain and had not given the freight of the goods to the petitioner. The aforesaid transportation of the tendu leaves was without his knowledge and connivance. The petitioner was allowed to examine witnesses and also permitted to produce and prove documents in his defence. The petitioner also appeared in witness box and cross-examined. The authorised officer could not satisfy in respect of the defence taken by the petitioner. The Forest Officer directed confiscation of the truck and tendu leaves. The appellate authority agreed with the finding recorded by the Forest Officer. Against the aforesaid orders though the revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, but petitioner remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this petition has been filed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that vide orders (P-9, 10 and 11), the authorities have categorically recorded a finding that the aforesaid transportation of the tendu leaves was without the knowledge of the petitioner, but directed seizure of the truck merely on the ground that the petitioner had not taken all reasonable necessary precaution against the use of the truck for the commission of an offence under the Act and only on this ground, the truck has been directed to be forfeited. He relies on Section 14 (6) of the M.P. Tendu Leaves (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 and contended that the petitioner has proved to the satisfaction of the authorities that the transportation of the aforesaid tendu leaves was without his knowledge and connivance. He had duly instructed driver not to transport any forest goods, then he had duly taken all reasonable necessary precautions to avoid any commission of the offence. The driver, Komal Chand, in his statement has categorically stated that, he had loaded the aforesaid goods after due enquiry from the persons who were also accompanying the goods. The driver was on the way from Begumganj to Sagar. The truck was loaded with cement. The petitioner was not knowing that during the transit of the cement, the driver will load the forest goods in the truck. The driver was on the way from Begumganj to Sagar. The truck was loaded with cement. The petitioner was not knowing that during the transit of the cement, the driver will load the forest goods in the truck. Apart from this, the persons who loaded the tendu leaves and assured the driver that they were having valid transit pass and had also shown the transit pass to the driver. If the driver was deceived by the aforesaid two persons, who also accompanied the goods, in these circumstances, even if it is assumed that the driver committed some grave mistake by not verifying the aforesaid transit pass, even then it can not be said that the petitioner had not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions to avoid commission of such offence. He relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator v. S.R. Kale, (1998) 1 SCC 48 and a Single Bench judgment of this High Court (Indore Bench) in Writ Petition No. 877/2000 Subhabh Agrawal v. Sub-Divisional Forest Officer and Anr. and contended that in this case the petitioner has similarly proved that he was not having any knowledge or connivance in the offence and had duly taken all reasonable precautions to avoid any commission of such offence. The forfeiture of the truck is illegal. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for State has supported the orders passed by the authorities and contended that the driver without due verification of the transit pass, which was for a different route and was only for five bags had loaded the goods. The driver as an agent of the petitioner permitted transportation of illegal tendu leaves. The authority has rightly seized and forfeited the truck. Apart from this, the petitioner has not examined the driver as witness before the authority and the defence as set up by the petitioner has been rightly disbelieved by the authorities. Contending aforesaid the learned Counsel appearing for State, Miss. Anjali Banerjee submits that this petition is without merit and may be dismissed. 5. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to look into the findings recorded by the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer and the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Contending aforesaid the learned Counsel appearing for State, Miss. Anjali Banerjee submits that this petition is without merit and may be dismissed. 5. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to look into the findings recorded by the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer and the learned Sessions Judge. 6. The Forest Officer-cum-Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, South Sagar vide his order (Annexure P-9), dated 26-5-2000 in Para 9 has recorded following findings :-- 9- foospuk& mHk; i{kksa ds Jo.k mijkar bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd ?kVuk dh jkf= okgu esa 11 cksjs rsanw ik 11-120 xMMh dk voS/k :i ls ifjogu fd;k tk jgk FkkA ekSds ij 5 cksjksa dh Vh-ih- 3 ekad 86@14 izLrqr dh x;h Fkh] ftlesa cksjksa dks csxexat ls cj[kqaok ifjogu fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k Fkk 'ks"k nks Vh-ih- tkap ds nkSjku izLrqr dh x;h Fkh ftuesa rhu&rhu rsanwikk cksjksa dk ifjogu csxexat ls e'k% goflyh rFkk eM+ok ifjogu fd;k tkuk n'kkZ;k x;k FkkA vukosnd }kjk izLrqr rhuksa Vh-ih- csxexat ds vkl ikl ds {ks=ksa ds fy, Fkha] buds tfj;s csj[ksM++h o lkxj] rsUnwik dk ifjogu ugha fd;k tk ldrk u gh rsanwikk dk ; fo; fcuk 'kklu dh vuqefr ds fd;k tk ldrk gSA okgu vukosnd ekad 2 ls tIr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlus vkosnd ds le{k fn;s x;s c;ku izn'kZ Mh 2 esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus Vh-ih- ns[kh FkhA vr% Li"V gS fd mls ;g ekywe Fkk fd bl Vh-ih- ds tfj;s rsanwikk dk ifjogu csj[ksMh o lkxj ds fy;s ugha fd;k tk ldrkA bl izdkj rsanwikk dk voS/k ifjogu vukosnd ekad 2 dh tkudkjh esa gqvkA okgu ekfyd vukosnd ekad 1 us viuk cpko bl rdZ ij fd;k gS fd og mldh tkudkjh esa ugha gqvkA ;fn vukosnd ekad 2 us rsUnwik dk voS/k ifjogu vukosnd ekad 1 dh cxSj vuqefr ds fd;k Fkk rks vukosnd ekad 1 dks pkfg, Fkk fd pkyd ds fo:) czhp vkWQ VLV dk vijkf/kd ekeyk ntZ djkrsA vukosnd ekad 1 us ,slk u dj vki Hkh pkyd vukosnd ekad 2 dks ukSdjh ij j[ks gq, gSA vukosnd ekad 1 us bl vk'; dk Hkh dksbZ bdjkjukek vFkok gyQukek izLrqr ugha fd;k gS] tks ;g lkfcr dj lds fd mUgksus okgu dk mi;ksx ou vijk/k esa jksdus ds fy, o leLr vko';d lko/kkfu;ka yh Fkh] tks e-iz- rsUnwikk O;kikj fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1964 dh /kkjk 146 ds vuqlkj vukosnd ekad 1 dks ysuh pkfg, FkhA vr% ;g lkfcr gks tkrk gS fd okgu dk mi;ksx ou vijk/k ?kfVr djus esa vukosnd ekad 2 }kjk iwjh tkudkjh esa fd;k x;k rFkk vukosnd ekad 1 us okgu dk mi;ksx ou vijk/k ?kfVr djus esa jksdus ds fy, leLr ;qf;q vkSj vko';d iw.kZ lko/kkfu;ka ugha cjrhaA vr% eSa e-iz- rsUnwik O;kikj fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1964 dh /kkjk 14 esa iznkk 'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, fuEu vkns'k izlkfjr djrk gwa%& vkns'k ekad@vf/kgj.k@2000@09 lkxj] fnukad 26&5&2000 ih-vksj-vkj ekad 1004@12 fnukad 8&1&2000 ds rgr tIr Vd ekad ,e-ih- 5 Mh-@0320 ,oa 11 X;kjg okLrfod cksjk rsUnwikk 11-120 xMMh dk vf/kgj.k jktlkr 'kklu i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA bl vkns'k dk dksbZ izHkko fdlh U;k;ky; esa fopkj/khu fdlh izdj.k ij ugha iM+sxkA lgh@& ,l-ds-,l- frokjh izkf/kr vf/kdkjh ,oa mi ou e.My vf/kdkjh] nf{k.k lkxj 7. The appellate authority in Para 9 of the order has recorded following findings:-- 9- vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k x;k fd ^^iz'uk/khu rsUnwikksa ds voS/k ifjogu ckcr okgu ekfyd vkSj pkyd ds chp dksbZ "kM;a= ;k lgefr vfHk;kstu ugha crk ldk gS] vr% okgu dks jktlkr dj okgu ekfyd dks nafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrk** ;g lgh gS fd mDr ou vijk/k esa okgu ekfyd dks ekSukuqdwyrk ;k lafyIrrk vfHk;kstu }kjk fl) ugha dh xbZ gS ijUrq okgu dk ou vijk/k esa mi;ksx gksuk lansg ls ijs ik;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa okgu ekfyd dh fyIrrk ,oa ekSukuqdwyrk u gksuk ;fn eku Hkh fy;k tk; rks Hkh okgu ou vijk/k esa fyIr gksus ls cpkus ckcr okgu ekfyd vkSj okgu pkyd dh vksj ls leqfpr lko/kkfu;ka cjrha tkuk ugha fl) fd;k tk ldk gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl vihy dks ekU; djus dk dksbZ Bksl vk/kkj ugha Kkr gksrkA 8. The learned Sessions Judge vide order (Annexure P-11) has recorded following finding in Paras 7 and 8 :-- "7. Both the officers admitted that transport was without knowledge or connivancb of the applicant. However, that in itself is not sufficient. The applicant should have proved to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that such truck was used for transport:-- "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." In other words the applicant was bound to prove :-- (i) that transport was without his knowledge or connivance; (ii) that such transport was without knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, and (iii) that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against mis-use of the truck for commission of forest offence. 8. Obviously, the conclusions or findings of facts recorded by both the officers that the applicant has been unable to prove the last two points was based on evidence and material on record. Both the Officers had rightly placed the burden of proof on the applicant. The applicant was bound to prove these points to the satisfaction of Authorised Officer. 8. Obviously, the conclusions or findings of facts recorded by both the officers that the applicant has been unable to prove the last two points was based on evidence and material on record. Both the Officers had rightly placed the burden of proof on the applicant. The applicant was bound to prove these points to the satisfaction of Authorised Officer. Statement on oath of the applicant was not found sufficient by him to establish such a defence, Driver Komal Chand though still in service of the applicant was not examined. His statement (Ex. D- 2) recorded by S.K. Jain (P.W. 2), also did not support such defence." 9. In the aforesaid orders, it is held that the petitioner has not taken all reasonable precautions against misuse of the truck for commission of the various offence and the goods was transported with knowledge and connivance of the driver. The Apex Court in the case of S.R. Kale (supra) held :-- "2. The truck of the respondent was ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, as it was found involved in commission of a forest offence. That order was confirmed by the Conservator of Forests. Against his order, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but it was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding." 10. The learned Judge in Subhash Agrawal (supra) held in Para 7:-- "7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of case. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed by getting rid of the two orders of the authorities. Perusal of first order of Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Authorised Officer in clear terms recorded a finding in favour of petitioner which is extracted above. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of case. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed by getting rid of the two orders of the authorities. Perusal of first order of Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Authorised Officer in clear terms recorded a finding in favour of petitioner which is extracted above. In order to hold petitioner guilty for the offence in question, it was necessary for the authorities to record a definite finding that the petitioner had the knowledge of the offence or/and that the offence was committed due to his connivance. Indeed these findings are pre-requisite/sine-qua-non for holding the petitioner who was the owner of the vehicle, guilty for the offence. As observed supra, the authority (respondent No. 1) on the other hand recorded a finding in favour of petitioner and yet proceeded to hold the petitioner to have committed offence. In my opinion, in view of the said finding which was based on appreciation of facts and evidence led, the verdict should have been in favour of petitioner." 11. In view of the aforesaid settled law by the Apex Court and by the High Court, it is apparent that the authorities have failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used in contravention of provisions of the Forest Act. On the contrary, all the authorities have recorded a finding that the aforesaid goods was loaded without the knowledge of the petitioner. The aforesaid truck was transporting the cement and during the transportation of the aforesaid cement, the driver had loaded some tendu leaves, on the false pretext of the persons carrying the aforesaid tendu leave that they were possessing the valid transit pass. Though he had duly instructed his driver not to transport any forest goods in the truck. The truck was entrusted to the driver to transport the cement only. If during the transportation, the driver without any malafide intention had loaded the tendu leaves; it can not be assumed that the petitioner has failed to take any reasonable precautions to avoid any offence. Without intention/mens rea, the petitioner can not be held guilty for transportation of the forest goods. The authorities have committed error in forefeiting the truck for the commission of the aforesaid offence. Without intention/mens rea, the petitioner can not be held guilty for transportation of the forest goods. The authorities have committed error in forefeiting the truck for the commission of the aforesaid offence. It will be pertinent to mention here that at the time of checking of the truck, both the persons who were transporting the goods, were present. They have not denied that the aforesaid goods was not of them. Apart from this, they produced the transit pass to the authorities though it was found invalid. In these circumstances, it can not be assumed that the driver had not bona fidely believed the aforesaid persons, who were accompanying the goods and had assured the driver that they were having valid transit pass of the goods. In these circumstances, orders passed by the authorities are hereby quashed. This petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to forthwith release the truck No. MP 15-D/0320 to the petitioner. No order as to costs.