Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioners, being aggrieved of the seizure of their trucks bearing registration No. M. P. No. 19-7900, M. P. 26-D-1756, MBC-8041, MP-09-K-3555 and Truck No-M. P-L-3361 respectively, have visited this Court with this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The trucks were seized for the alleged offence of transporting timber wood from village Jadiya to mohada without transit pass, wherefor a forest offence under section 5 (1) and 15 of the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 1969 Vide P. O. R. No. 412/18 was registered. The petitioners seek quashment of P. O. R. 412/18 and the release of trucks seized. ( 2. ) FACTS giving rise to the seizure of trucks and registration of forest offence, briefly are that, one Smt. Durpati W/o Nandlal Gavli R/o Village Jadiya, District betul, owner of land bearing Khasra No. 233, 234 and 273 admeasuring 2. 431 hectares at Patwari Halka No. 7 having on it 149 Teak trees, applied for felling of trees as permissible under MP. Lok Vaniki Niyam, 2002 and as per plan prepared therein, she was allowed to fell 60 trees standing over Khasra No. 233, 234 and 23 7 in the first phase, by the Divisional Forest Officer, West Betul, vide order No. 103 dated 7. 6. 2008. Whereafter the land was demarcated by the concerning patwari and the trees were cut thereafter, as per sanction. She applied for transportation of timber to the Range Office, Mohda which was accorded and hammer impression were put on each timber piece. However, before the transit passes could be issued as the stung is put by the respondents, she arranged the trucks in question and got the timber transported from village Jadiya to Mohda, which, as stated, is at a distance of 17 Kms. These trucks when were taken to range office Mohda were apprehended by respondent No. 5, Naib Tahsildar bhimpuri, who caused their seizure on 18. 7. 2008 for want of transit passes. ( 3. ) TO ascertain as to whether the trees in question were cut from proper place as permitted, a joint spot inspection by the revenue and forest authorities was carried out on 22. 7. 7. 2008 for want of transit passes. ( 3. ) TO ascertain as to whether the trees in question were cut from proper place as permitted, a joint spot inspection by the revenue and forest authorities was carried out on 22. 7. 2008; whereupon, it was found that the Patwari had wrongly demarcated the land and out of 60 only 9 trees were found to be from the land belonging to Smt. Durpati Bai; whereas two trees were from the land of Shri parasram owner of Khasra No. 272 and 49 trees were from Khasra No. 235/1 belonging to revenue department and recorded as "bade Jhad Ka Jangal". A case for illicit felling was prepared vide POR 811/16 on 8. 8. 2006. Furthermore, since it was found that the timber in question was transported without valid transit pass over a lead of 17 Kms village Jadiya to Modha an offence against the truck drivers was registered under Rules framed under section 41 of the Indian forest Act, 1927 read with section 5 (1) and 15 of M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 vide POR. 412/18 on 4. 11. 2008. It is also pointed out that because of violation of Rule 8 of the M. P. Lok Vaniki Ahiniyam, 2002 an action is contemplated by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhaisdehi. ( 4. ) WITH these facts in the background the petitioner claims that, no offence is be committed while carrying a duly hammer marked teak wood, wherefor, the transit passes though issued but cancelled for other reasons. It is urged, that the felling was done by the owner of land in presence of the officials of the forest department and the hammer impressions were put by the forest department and even the loading was done in presence of the forest officer as per the list prepared by them and over the transit passes in respect of said timber were prepared and merely because the passes were not in physical possession of the devices, it cannot be said that the timber was unauthorizedly - carried from village Jadiya to the Range Office, Mohada. It is contended that there was neither a mens rea nor any connivance on the part of either of the owners of the truck to have transported the timber unauthorizedly. ( 5. It is contended that there was neither a mens rea nor any connivance on the part of either of the owners of the truck to have transported the timber unauthorizedly. ( 5. ) IT is accordingly, urged that the action of seizure is illegal and the initiation of the procedure for confiscation vide POR No. 412/18 is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. ( 6. ) THE respondents however, have a different string to play. It is contended, inter alia, that no forest produce could be transported without proper and valid transit pass. And even if, as in the present case, the hammer marked timber was transported, it was obligatory for the transporter to have carried a valid transit pass. Since the trucks when apprehended on 18. 7. 2008 were not having valid transit pass, the authorities did not commit any error in causing their seizure and register a case for confiscation thereof. ( 7. ) TO ascertain whether an offence under the Act of 1969 has been committed by the petitioners, opportune it would be to look in to the provisions under which the petitioners have been charged. ( 8. ) SECTION 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1969 stipulates as under: 1. Restriction on purchase or transport of specified forest produce.- (1) On the issue of a notification under sub-section (3) of section 1 with respect to any area, no person other than.- (a) the State Government; (b) an officer of the State Government authorised in writing in that behalf; or (c) an agent in respect of the unit in which the specified forest produce is grown or found; shall purchase or transport such specified forest produce in such area. Explanation I. Purchase shall include purchase by barter. Explanation II-Purchase of specified forest produce from the state Government or the aforesaid Government Officer or Agent or a licensed Vendor or purchase under Section 12-A shall not be deemed to be a purchase in contravention of the provisions of this Act. Explanation III-A person having no interest in the holding who has acquired to collect the specified forest produce grown or found on such holding shall be deemed to have purchased such produce in contravention of the provisions of this Act. Explanation III-A person having no interest in the holding who has acquired to collect the specified forest produce grown or found on such holding shall be deemed to have purchased such produce in contravention of the provisions of this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in such-section (1 )- (a ) a grower of forest produce other than Mahua may transport his produce from any place within the unit wherein such produce is grown or is found to any other place in that unit; and a grower of Mahua may possess and transport Mahua from any place within the district where such Mahua is grown or is found to any place within that district. (b ) any person may transport the specified forest produce not exceeding the quantity as may be prescribed from the place of purchase of such produce to the place where such produce is required for his bonafide use or for consumption. (c ) specified forest produce purchased from the State Government or any officer or agent specified in the said sub section by any person for manufacture of goods within the State in which such specified forest produce is used a as raw material or by any person for sale outside the State or by the licensed vendor may be transported by such person in accordance with the terms and conditions of a transit pass to be issued in that behalf by such authority in such manner and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. Different rate of fee may be prescribed for different types of transport vehicle and (d) any person having right of nistar in any forest in respect of any specified forest produce under any law for the time being in force, may transport such produce for his domestic use or consumption in such quantity and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. (3) Any person desiring to sell the specified forest produce may sell them to the aforesaid Government officer or agent at any depot situated within the said unit: provided that the State Government, the Government Officer or agent shall not be bound to repurchase the specified forest produce once sold. ( 9. (3) Any person desiring to sell the specified forest produce may sell them to the aforesaid Government officer or agent at any depot situated within the said unit: provided that the State Government, the Government Officer or agent shall not be bound to repurchase the specified forest produce once sold. ( 9. ) A close look at the aforesaid provision would reveal that a grower of forest produce other than Mahua may transport his produce from any place within the unit wherein such produce is grown or is found to any other place in that unit and any person may transport the specified forest produce not exceeding the quantity as may be prescribed from the place of purchase of such produce to the place where such produce is required for his bonafide use or for consumption. ( 10. ) FURTHERMORE, any person having right of nistar in any forest in respect of any specified forest produce under any law for the time being in force, may transport such produce for his domestic use or consumption in such quantity and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. ( 11. ) IN the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the said Smt. Durpati had the permission to cut 60 Teak wood standing over land bearing Khasra No. 233, 234 and 273 admeasuring 2. 431 hectares at Patwari Halka No. 7 village Jadiya District betul. It was therefore, lawful on her part that she got those trees transported from village Jaidya to the Depot Mohda. ( 12. ) IT is however, immaterial in the present case that subsequently it was found that on the basis of wrong demarcation of the land by respective Patwaris the trees were cut from the land belonging to the persons and from the Government land ( 13. ) SECTION 15 of the Adhiniyam 1969: 15. Search and seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefor. ) SECTION 15 of the Adhiniyam 1969: 15. Search and seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefor. (1) Any Forest Officer as may be notified by the State Government or any Police Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Sub Inspector] or any other person authorised by the State Government may, with a view to securing compliance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or to satisfying himself that the said provisions have been complied with- (i) stop and search any person, boat , vehicle or respectable used or intended to be used for the transport of specified forest produce (ii) enter and search any place. (2) When there is reason to believe that any offence under this Act has been committed in respect of any specified forest produce, any forest officer as may be notified by the State Government or any Police Officer not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector] or any person authorised by the State Government in this behalf may, Seize such specified forest produce along with all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other articles used in committing such offence under the provisions of this Act. (3) Any officer or person seizing any property under this section shall place on all such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before the officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forest authorised by the State Government in this behalf, by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or where it is having regard to quantity or bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce the property seized before the authorised officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorised officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately make report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which seizure has been made: provided that, when the specified forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes as soon as may be a report of the circumstances to his official superior. (4) Subject to the provisions of subjection (6 ), where the authorised officer upon production before him of the specified forest produce or upon receipt of report about the seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate the specified forest produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other articles used in committing such offence. A copy of order of confiscation shall be forwarded without any undue delay to the Conservator of Forest of the circle in which the specified forest produce has been seized. (5) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-section (4) unless the authorised officer- (a) sends an intimation in forms prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any person who may appear to the authorised officer to have some interest in such property; ( c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation ; and (d ) gives to the officer or person effecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause ( b), a hearing on the date to be fixed for such purpose. (6) No order of confiscation under sub-section (4) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other articles (other than specified forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (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. (7) The provisions of Sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) relating to search and seizures shall so far as may be apply to searches and seizures under this Section. ( 14. ) IT is therefore, necessary that there has to be a knowledge or connivance, for holding a person guilty of an offence under section 5 of the Act of 1969. ( 15. ) THE facts of the present case discloses that trucks of the petitioners were hired by one Smt. Durpati who had in her possession a valid sanction to cut 60 teak trees standing on her land. The trees were then cut in presence of forest officials who also supervised the loading thereof in respective trucks. These trucks were admittedly to be taken to the Depot at Mohda which is at the distance of 17 Kms. The transit pass were prepared and in the process thereof the trucks were taken to Mohda. It cannot therefore be gathered from these facts that there was any connivance for committing a forest offence. ( 16. ) SINCE the transit passes were being prepared in the Range Office, Mohda and after the instruction accorded by the DFO to issue transit pass the trucks were loaded with hammer impression in each teak wood and were being carried from the place where they were loaded, i. e. , from village Jadiya to Range office Mohda. All these activities were carried out under the supervision of forest officer who were present on the spot, i. e. , in village Jadiya. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were unauthorizedly carrying away the forest produce as would invite a forest offence under section 5 of the Act of 1969. ( 17. ) THEREFORE, in the considered opinion of this Court no offence can be said to have been made out under section 5 of the Act of 1969 as would entitle the respondents to proceed with the confiscation of the petitioners seized trucks. ( 18. ) IN the result the petition is allowed. P. O. R. 412/18 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to forthwith return the trucks bearing Registration Nos. M. P. No. 19-7900, M. P. 26-D-1756, MBC-8041, MP-09-K-3555 and Truck No-M. P-L-3361 to respective petitioners under their acknowledgment. ( 19. ) THE petition is allowed to the extent above. However no costs. Petition allowed.