Judgment :- Patil, J 1. Petitioner is the owner of a Maruthi Van bearing No.KA-01-2855. He is challenging the order dated 30.06.1999 (wrongly mentioned as 30.05.1999 in the prayer column of the Writ Petition) passed in Crl. Misc. No.52/1993 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, confirming the order of confiscation dated 05.03.1993 passed by the 2ndrespondent – Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forest Mobile Squad, Shimoga Circle, Shimoga. 2. The2nd respondent passed an order in exercise of his powers under Section 71-A(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, for short), confiscating the vehicle in question along with sandalwood pieces and chips weighing 167 kgs found in the vehicle. Aggrieved by this order, the owner of the vehicle--petitioner herein filed an appeal under Section 71-D of the Act before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga. The said appeal having been dismissed, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition stated in nutshell are that on 31.01.1993 at about 7.30 a.m., the Forest Mobile Squad, Shimoga, stopped a Vehicle bearing No.KA-01-2855 near M.R.S. on Umblebylu-Shimoga road on suspicion. On inspection it was found that the vehicle was driven by one Mohammed Nayaz Pasha. Sri. K.S. Suresh S/o Srinivasaiah and Sri K.T. Puttaswamy S/o Manjappa Gowda were the inmates of the vehicle. All the three persons were arrested. The forest staff seized 44 pieces of sandalwood weighing 157 Kgs and plastic bags having 10 Kgs of sandalwood chips, totally weighing 167 Kgs. The Range Forest Officer, Forest Mobile Squad, Shimoga, registered a case in No.FMS. SMG FOC.181/92-93. A mahazar was conducted and the vehicle was seized. 4. A show cause notice came to be issued by the Forest Officer to the owner of the vehicle-petitioner herein calling upon him to have his say as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated. The owner of the vehicle -- petitioner herein, replied contending inter alia that the vehicle was used in the illegal transportation of sandalwood without his knowledge and that he had nothing to do with the materials recovered or seized from the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle -- petitioner herein, replied contending inter alia that the vehicle was used in the illegal transportation of sandalwood without his knowledge and that he had nothing to do with the materials recovered or seized from the vehicle. The 2nd Respondent-Authorised Officer on consideration of the reply submitted, has passed the impugned order of confiscation holding that the explanation offered by the owner of the vehicle that he had taken all the care while entrusting the vehicle to the driver and that he had no connection at all or that he had no knowledge of the vehicle being involved in the transportation of the sandalwood could not be believed. 5. In thecourse of enquiry before the Authorised Officer, several witnesses were examined and statements of SajidHameed, Range Forest Officer and M. Bheemarayappa, Forest Guard of Forest Mobile Squad, Shi. moga Circle, Shimoga, were recorded and documents such as spot mahazar, seizure report, enquiry report of the Range Forest Officer, etc., were relied upon. 6. The owner of the vehicle (petitioner herein) examined himself. The Manager of Tourist Bureau, Bangalore, Sri Hari and also one Ramachandra, owner of the hotel known as Ganesh Darshan, Bangalore were also examined. The petitioner produced and relied upon documents in the form of certificates issued by an advocate and also a certificate issued by the General Manager of Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, certifying his good transport service. 7. Considering the evidence on record both oral and documentary, the 2nd respondent-Authorised Officer has found that once it is established that a forest offence is committed and the vehicle along with sandalwood was seized, as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it was the responsibility of the owner to prove that the forest offence was committed without his or his agents knowledge and connivance. The 2nd respondent has further held that it was for the owner to establish that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such misuse. Referring to sub-clause (2) of Section 71-B of the Act and considering the evidence on record, the Authorised Officer has held that the owner of the vehicle had failed to prove that without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge of his agent, the vehicle was used in transporting the sandalwood illegally. In these circumstances, the Authorised Officer has persuaded himself to order for confiscation of the vehicle. 8. In these circumstances, the Authorised Officer has persuaded himself to order for confiscation of the vehicle. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, on appeal, has re-appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Authorised Officer did not suffer from any illegality or error. He has also recorded a finding that although it was pleaded by the owner that the driver was forced at knife point to use the vehicle for the purpose of carrying sandalwood, in the absence of any complaint being lodged by the driver, the said version could not be believed. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded a finding that the owner of the vehicle was not showing his bonafides in the case when he urged that the vehicle was given on hire to one Mr.Suresh to enable him to go to Shimoga. Several aspects are pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge as to how and why the version of the owner could not be believed. 9. It is well established that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, it is neither possible nor permissible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and come to a contrary conclusion to the one arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, as it is in the realm of appreciation of evidence on record 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that unless it is shown that there is connivance of the owner of the vehicle with the alleged offence committed, even if it is assumed that the driver had in fact involved in the commission of the offence, the order confiscating the vehicle cannot be passed. He submits that the provisions contained under Section 71-B(2) of the Act make it clear that what the owner is required to establish is his non-connivance in the offence and the reasonable care taken by him in entrusting the vehicle. 10.11. The above contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. He submits that the provisions contained under Section 71-B(2) of the Act make it clear that what the owner is required to establish is his non-connivance in the offence and the reasonable care taken by him in entrusting the vehicle. 10.11. The above contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In this regard, it is useful to extract Section 71-B(2) of the Act which reads as under:- "71-B(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be madeunder section 71A if the owner of the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle proves to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that it was used in carrying the timber; sandalwood, charcoal, firewood, gulmavu (Machilus marantha) bark, dalchini bark, Halmaddi (exudation of Ailantus malabricurn) canes or ivory without 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 necessary precautions against such use. " It is clear from the provision that no order of confiscation shall be made if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that the vehicle was used in carrying the timber, sandalwood, etc., without the knowledge of the owner himself, his agent if any, and the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle, etc. In other words, to escape from the penal provision what is required to be established to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer is that neither the owner nor his agent nor any person in charge of the vehicle had connived in the commission of the offence and that they had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such illegal use of the vehicle. It is not enough for the owner to establish that he had taken all necessary precautions. But, it is a pre-requisite, as per the provision to escape from the liability of confiscation, to establish that even the agent, who was entrusted with the vehicle, had also taken reasonable care and had not connived in the offence. In the instant case, the driver who was entrusted with the vehicle has not given any evidence before the Authorised Officer. The owner has not chosen to examine him. In the instant case, the driver who was entrusted with the vehicle has not given any evidence before the Authorised Officer. The owner has not chosen to examine him. Though the owner claims that the driver used the vehicle in the commission of the offence having been coerced at knife point to transport the sandalwood, no material is produced to probablize this version. If that was the case, the driver should have filed a complaint against the person who threatened him, that too at knife point. Even the owner who claims that he had learnt about it has also not lodged any complaint in this regard immediately. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an unreported judgment rendered in Criminal Revision Petition No.68/1996 disposed of on 210.1998. In the said case, the confiscation order passed by the Authorised Officer had been set aside by the Sessions Judge, aggrieved by which the Authorised Officer had preferred a revision petition before this Court. While dismissing the said revision petition, this Court has observed that the proceedings under Section 71-A of the Act were independent and distinct proceedings and had nothing to do with the result of the criminal case pending against the accused persons who were involved in the theft of forest products under Section 71-A of the Act. The facts and circumstances involved in the said case are not similar to the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the court had no occasion to interpret the provisions contained under Section 71-B(2) of the Act. 13. In fact, the judgment rendered by this Court in Ramesh N.Dixit Vs. State of Karnataka ILR 1985 KAR 2571 reported in has a bearing on the legal question involved in the present case. In the said case, this Court has laid down that the Authorised Officer can order confiscation upon being satisfied as to the commission of the forest offence and after holding an enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. It is further held that the owner was required to show under sub-Section (2) of Section 71-B of the Act that he, his agent, if any and the person incharge of the vehicle had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the misuse of the vehicle and that the offence had been committed without the knowledge or connivance of any of them. 14. 14. As held by me herein above, in the instant case, the non-examination of the driver and the facts and circumstances adverted to by the Authorised Officer as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge show that it was not shown that the driver of the vehicle had nothing to do with the commission of the offence and that he had taken all reasonable care in the matter against the misuse of the vehicle. This will disentitle the petitioner from laying a successful challenge to the order. 15. In the above circumstances, the approach adopted by the Authorised Officer in passing the order confiscating the vehicle along with the materials and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, cannot be characterized as illegal. There is no error of jurisdiction or of law in the impugned orders. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.