R. C. CHAVAN, J.:- The Authorised Officer/Assistant Conservator of Forest, Range Forest Officer and State of Maharashtra have filed this petition taking exception to the order passed by the learned Fist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Forest Appeal No.38 of 2003, setting aside order confiscating Truck No.MH-29/7712 passed by the Authorised Officer. 2. Truck No.MH-29/7712 owned by respondent No.1 and driven, at the relevant time, by respondent No.2, was seized by the Forest Officers for illegally transporting 34 logs of teak wood. It was alleged that the truck was loaded with forest produce in the Forest Depot at Jodmoha. After loading 66 logs of teak wood and 980 bamboos which had been purchased by the contractor, who had hired the truck, 34 logs of teak wood were illegally loaded in the truck. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 driver of the truck, knew that these 34 logs of teak wood were being illegally loaded in the truck. After issuing requisite notice and hearing the parties, the Authorised Officer and Assistant Conservator of Forests ordered confiscation of the truck by his order dated 08-12-2003. 3. Aggrieved by this order the owner/respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. After hearing the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to hold that the owner had proved that he had neither connived with illegal transportation of 34 logs of teak wood nor had he or his driver knowledge that any such illegal activity had taken place. The learned First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, set aside the order of confiscation and directed release of the truck. Aggrieved thereby the Forest Officer and the State have preferred this petition. 4. We have heard Shri. Badar, learned Special Counsel for the petitioners and Shri. Bhide, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. On going through the order passed by the Authorised Officer and the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge it can be seen that the truck had been hired for loading 66 teak wood logs and 980 pieces of bamboos which had been lawfully purchased by the hirer of the truck. In respect of 34 logs of teak wood, it is the case of the department itself that the logs bear requisite hammer marks. It is not expected of a driver to know how the contractor has procured those hammer marks. In respect of 34 logs of teak wood, it is the case of the department itself that the logs bear requisite hammer marks. It is not expected of a driver to know how the contractor has procured those hammer marks. The learned Special Counsel submitted that the conversation about the transaction illegally putting hammer marks on the teak wood logs had taken place between the contractor and the forest labourers in presence of the driver. However, this fact is neither reflected in any record nor reflected in the order passed by the Authorised Officer. 6. In any case, we are satisfied that the driver had taken necessary precautions in ensuring that no illegally felled forest produce was loaded in the truck since the produce loaded in the truck bore requisite hammer mark. Therefore, we are satisfied that the burden cast on the owner to prove absence of knowledge or connivance under sub-section (2) of Section 61-8 of the Indian Forest Act was discharged by the owner. Therefore, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the appeal and set aside order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer. 7. We see no merit in the petition, which is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. 8. As a result of this, the Forest Department shall handover possession of the truck to the respondent forthwith in terms of the order passed by the learned First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. Petition dismissed.