JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard both the sides for final hearing. 2. Present proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2011. The appeal was filed by Respondent against the order made by competent authority, appointed under Indian Forest Act. The competent authority had made the order of confiscation of jeep of the Respondent. 3. Record shows that the officers of forest department came across jeep No. MH-26-V-2079 when they were doing patrolling duty on 19th June, 2010 in the night time. The jeep was intercepted for inspection and the officers notices that there was teak wood (planks and beams) in the jeep. The size of this material was 0.2245 Cub.mtr. When the officers made inquiry with driver Dashrath Ratnaparkhe, they found that there was no pass issued by forest department with regard to this material. Another person Atul Chavan who was present in the jeep also could not produce the record required in this regard. He informed that the material was purchased by him from one Datta Sutar for the consideration ofRs.6,500/ - and Datta Sutar was expected to give the pass to him subsequently. As there was no pass of forest department, the material and the jeep were taken in custody under Panchanama by the officers of Forest Department. Crime was registered in respect of this incident. 4. During investigation of the aforesaid incident, the officers came to know that Datta Jalalpurkar had sold this material to Atul Chavan and this person admitted that there was such transaction. Datta Jalalpurkar could not produce any record of ownership or of forest department to show that the material was collected by him as per the procedure provided under the Act. Then, Datta Jalalpurkar (alias Sutar) admitted that four teak trees from Government Forest were cut by him and the material was some portion of the wood of the trees. The remaining portion was found in the house of Jalalpurkar alias Sutar. Panchanama of the spot from where the trees were cut was prepared. As the theft of the aforesaid material of Government was committed, after cutting teak trees from Government Forest, case was filed against these persons. Proceeding was also started under section 61 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (MaharashtraAmendment). 5. Show cause notice was given to Respondent, who is registered owner of the jeep. As the theft of the aforesaid material of Government was committed, after cutting teak trees from Government Forest, case was filed against these persons. Proceeding was also started under section 61 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (MaharashtraAmendment). 5. Show cause notice was given to Respondent, who is registered owner of the jeep. At the relevant time, son of Respondent, was driving the jeep. He took the defence that promise was given to them that forest pass wi1l be shown subsequently. The authority made inquiry with the persons who include Panch witnesses and perused the record. The authority found that there was contravention of provisions of section 26 (F), 41 (2) of Forest Act. The Authority came to the conclusion that the owner of the vehicle had not taken proper precaution and it cannot be said that he had no knowledge that the owner of the teak wood had no proper permission and pass. In view of this circumstance, the order of confiscation came to be made. 6. Revision was filed against this order by Respondent which came to be dismissed. In the appeal, the Sessions Court has held that the driver of the jeep was convinced by both Datta Sutar and Atul Chavan that they would show forest pass subsequently and so it needs to be presumed that reasonable and necessary precaution was taken. It is observed that it cannot be inferred that the driver was in connivance with Datta Sutar and Atul Chavan. While setting aside the original order and order made in revision, the Sessions Court has directed to hand over the custody of the vehicle to the registered owner/ respondent. 7. In the record, there are statements of many persons including the son of the respondent. It is not the case of anybody that the material which was seized was not the material collected from Government Forest illegally. Admittedly, Chavan or Datta Sutar had not shown any pass or permission issued by the Forest Department to son of Respondent. It was teak wood and so as provided in section 61-8 (2) the burden was on Respondent to prove that reasonable and necessary precaution was taken by his son or him when they were carrying the teak wood in the jeep. It is the question of subjective satisfaction of Forest Officer. It was teak wood and so as provided in section 61-8 (2) the burden was on Respondent to prove that reasonable and necessary precaution was taken by his son or him when they were carrying the teak wood in the jeep. It is the question of subjective satisfaction of Forest Officer. The provision of section 61-8 (2) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 runs as under: "61-8 (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any tool, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made under section 61-A if the owner of the tool, boat, vehicle or cattle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying the timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other notified forest-produce without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the tool, boat, vehicle or cattle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use." 8. The aforesaid circumstances and record show that nothing more was required for confiscation of the jeep. When there is such material, the Appellate Court is not expected to interfere in the order made by the authority. In view of the circumstances, this Court holds that the Sessions Court has committed error in setting aside the orders made by the authorities of forest department. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order of Sessions Court delivered in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2011 is hereby set aside. The order of confiscation made by the Forest Authority and the order made in revision are restored. 10. The rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. n. Time of one month is given to the respondent to hand over custody of the vehicle to the forest department, if the custody of the vehicle is already handed over to the respondent. Petition allowed.