ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.11 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Ujjain in Cr. R. No. 69/11 whereby order of confiscation of Tavera Car bearing registration No. MP/-4-HB/1946 was maintained, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of Tavera Car bearing registration No. MP/-04-HB/1946. The offending vehicle was seized by the respondents on 23.2.09 as it was transporting 154 Kg. piece of sandalwood and the case was registered at crime No. 39/09 for an offence under section 271, 41 of Forest Act and under section 379 of IPC. Show cause notice was give to the petitioner to the effect that why the offending vehicle should not be confiscated, of which reply was submitted by the petitioner. After holding summary enquiry DFO, Dewas vide order dated 15.2.10 passed an order whereby it was directed that the offending car be confiscated, against which an appeal was filed before Chief Conservator of Forest, which was dismissed on 27.1.11, against which revision petition was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and Authorities are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that right from beginning case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner of the offending car and the same has been purchased by the petitioner after obtaining loan from HDFC Bank. It is submitted that on 19.2.09 there was a marriage of the niece of the petitioner, which was solemnized at Somesh Gardan, Dhar Road, Indore. It was alleged that maternal uncle of the petitioner came to attend the marriage and on 22.2.09 the offending vehicle was sent to Bhopal for dropping the maternal uncle of petitioner. It is submitted that when the offending car was returning from Bhopal at that time driver of the offending vehicle allowed the fare paying passengers to travel in the car. It is submitted that at that time offending car was seized by the police and after returning to Sonkattch petitioner came to know that the passenger were transporting Sandalwood illegally. It is submitted that when the offending car was returning from Bhopal at that time driver of the offending vehicle allowed the fare paying passengers to travel in the car. It is submitted that at that time offending car was seized by the police and after returning to Sonkattch petitioner came to know that the passenger were transporting Sandalwood illegally. It is submitted that Shiva Parmar allowed the passengers to travel in the offending vehicle in greed of fare, for which there was no consent of the petitioner and also the petitioner was having no knowledge about it. It is submitted that this fact was found proved in the enquiry conducted by the respondents that there is no evidence to the effect that the alleged offence was committed by Shiva Parmar with the consent and within the knowledge of the petitioner, but in spite of that learned Court below and also DFO and Appellate Authority illegally passed the orders of confiscation. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and the authorities be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that since the offending vehicle was engaged in transporting the forest produce illegally, therefore, the offending vehicle has rightly been confiscated. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court is limited under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 deals with seizure of property liable to conclusion and procedure there for. As per sub-section (3) of section 52 of Indian Forest Act if the authorised Officer upon production before who 11 property seized or upon receipt of record about seizure, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed m respect thereof, he may by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate forest-produce so seized together with the vehicle. Sub-section (4) of section 52 of the Indian Forest lays down that the forest Officer cannot pass the order of confiscation under sub-section (3) unless the forest officer completes the requirement of sub-section (3). Sub-section (4) of section 52 of the Indian Forest lays down that the forest Officer cannot pass the order of confiscation under sub-section (3) unless the forest officer completes the requirement of sub-section (3). Sub-section (5) of section 52 of Indian Forest Act mandates that no order of confiscation under sub-section (3) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of subsection (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that the vehicle was 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 object aforesaid for commission of forest offence. 6. In the matter of State of M. P. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, 1991 (1) MPWN 66 this Court held that in a case where owner of vehicle proving ignorance of commission of forest offence, vehicle cannot be confiscated. In the matter of Subhash Agrawal v. Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, 2002 (1) MPWN 67 wherein SDM-cum-Authorised Officer (Forest) recording finding in favour of petitioner yet proceeding to hold him guilty of offence under section 15 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 this Court held that it is necessary to record definite finding of knowledge or connivance and such finding is sine qua non for holding owner of vehicle guilty of offence. It was further held that revisional Court acting as appellate Court. It was further held that since the orders exhibiting error apparent on the face of record and which are based on the findings already recorded, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction can be invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that revisional Court acting as appellate Court. It was further held that since the orders exhibiting error apparent on the face of record and which are based on the findings already recorded, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction can be invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of Assistant Forest Conservator v. Sharad Ramchandra Kale, AIR 1998 SC 2927 wherein the truck of the respondent was ordered to be confiscated by Assistant Conservator Forest as it was found involved in commission of forest offence and the High Court in a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India set aside order of confiscation on the ground that authority has 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 provisions of the Forest Act, Hon'ble Apex Court held that finding was based upon the evidence on the record, therefore, no interference can be made with such findings. 7. In the present case in enquiry respondent has examined Vinod Singh Kushwah (Station Officer, Police Station, Borasa), Shankarlal Ghodge, Ravi Verma, Sumersingh, Madanlal Rawat and Omprakash Patel. While the petitioner has examined himself. In the cross-examination Vinod Singh Kushwah he has stated as under: nsodh uanu ‘kekZ ekSds ij mifLFkr ugha FksA nsodh uanu dh fyIrrk ds laca/k esa ekSds ij dksbZ lk{; ugha feys gSA 8. Learned Court below has also found that in the cross-examination of Vinod Singh Kushwah he has admitted that no evidence was found to demonstrate that the petitioner was involved in the offence. In the present case since there was no evidence to the effect that the petitioner was involved in the offence and keeping in view the statement of petitioner this Court is of the view that the learned Court below and the authorised Officers of Forest Department committed error in exercising powers in confiscating the offending vehicle under sub-section (3), of section 52 of Indian Forest Act, as it was in violation of sub-section (5) of section 52 of Indian Forest Act which lays down that no order of cont section can be passed unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that the vehicle in question was used within the knowledge of the owner or connivance. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and also the order dated 15.2.10 whereby offending vehicle was seized and confiscated is set aside with a direction to the respondents to return the offending vehicle to the petitioner forthwith. 9. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.