ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 21-1-2010 passed by the Fast Track and Additional MACT, Bhadravathi in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2006 whereby, the order dated 15-2-2006 passed by the first respondent has been affirmed. The brief facts are that the vehicle bearing No. K-A-06-9385 is a lorry which belongs to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is stated to have intercepted the said vehicle along with a forest guard on 23-8-2006, since the said lorry was unauthorisedly carrying 200 bunches of bamboo sticks. In that regard, a case in F.O.C. No. 16/2003-04 was registered under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The procedure in that regard is also contemplated under Section 71-B of the Act. The first respondent who is the Authorised Officer under the Act, has by the order dated 15-2-2006, arrived at the conclusion that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, being involved in forest offences is established and in that regard, the confiscated forest produce as well as the vehicle belonging to the petitioner has been forfeited to the Government. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has preferred an appeal before the Court below. The Court below has affirmed the said order. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is assailing both the said orders in this petition. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while strenuously seeking to assail both the said orders, would contend that the first respondent as well as the Court below were not justified in its conclusion. It is contended that no cases have been registered against the inmates of the vehicle and the statements have not been recorded. The first respondent as well as the Court below have sought to take note of the allegations made against the petitioner which has not been established. It is contended that the petitioner had provided explanation to the effect that he was not involved nor was the offence committed with his knowledge. In that view, apart from examining himself, the petitioner had also examined the owner of the transport company, with whom the lorry had been lodged by the petitioner for the purpose of use, when he was away at Bangalore. In that view, apart from examining himself, the petitioner had also examined the owner of the transport company, with whom the lorry had been lodged by the petitioner for the purpose of use, when he was away at Bangalore. In that view, it is contended that when such a reasonable explanation had been put forth by the petitioner, the burden to the said extent had been discharged by the petitioner and therefore the Court below should have taken note of these aspects and should have arrived at a proper conclusion. It is therefore contended that when such action of forfeiting the vehicle belonging to the petitioner is being ordered, the evidence should have been properly analysed and the benefits should have been granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Advocate, after referring to the very same evidence which has been tendered before the Court below and the findings rendered by the first respondent as also the Court below; with reference to the objection statement filed before this Court, would contend that keeping in view the nature of the provision contained in the Karnataka Forest Act and that the burden is required to be discharged by the parties, the Forest Officer as well as the Court below were justified in their conclusion. It is contended that the fact that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was used for the forest offence cannot be in dispute. If that be the position, the explanation adverted to by the petitioner was insufficient; and in such circumstance, the first respondent as well as the Court below were justified and the orders does not call for interference. 4. In the light of the rival contentions, I have not only perused the order passed by the first respondent and by the Court below but also the other papers that have been produced along with the writ petition. The evidence as recorded in the proceedings before the first respondent has been referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties. In the light of the rival contentions, I have not only perused the order passed by the first respondent and by the Court below but also the other papers that have been produced along with the writ petition. The evidence as recorded in the proceedings before the first respondent has been referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties. While taking note of the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, what is also necessary to be kept in view is that Section 71 of the Act, under which the proceedings are held would cast the burden on the owner of the vehicle which was involved in such offence to explain the non-complicity of such owner in the offence or for the vehicle being used to commit such offences despite the owner exercising due caution and care. 5. In the instant case, a perusal of the evidence tendered and the reasoning adopted by the first respondent as well as the Court below would indicate that to the extent that the vehicle had been seized at the spot based on the advance information received by the officials on 23-8-2006 cannot be disputed. If that be the position, the issue is only as to whether the petitioner has discharged his burden of establishing before the authority that he had taken all care to see that the vehicle had not been used by any unauthorized person or by a person on whom the petitioner had not placed trust. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and on perusal of the evidence tendered by the petitioner, it is seen that the explanation put forth by the petitioner is that he had to leave to Bangalore and therefore the vehicle had been entrusted to one Sri Ansar, who is the owner of the Rajadani Transport. He also states that he had authorised the said person to put the vehicle to legal use. In order to substantiate such stand taken by the petitioner and the evidence tendered, he has no doubt examined Ansar as a witness and his evidence was recorded on 22-6-2005. A perusal of the evidence of Ansar would no doubt indicate that he has also stated that the vehicle had been entrusted to him and on 22-8-2003 he had sent the vehicle with paddy husky loaded to the same. A perusal of the evidence of Ansar would no doubt indicate that he has also stated that the vehicle had been entrusted to him and on 22-8-2003 he had sent the vehicle with paddy husky loaded to the same. He has further stated that on the same day, the driver had called him up from Ajjampur and intimated that the silk tray are to be transported from Srinivaspur. In reply, the said Ansar is stated to have told the driver that if appropriate permit is available, such transport could be made. 6. The question therefore is as to whether such evidence tendered by a person known to the petitioner would be sufficient in the absence of other evidence to show that the petitioner himself had taken sufficient care. Except stating so and the person known to the petitioner stating that the lorry had been entrusted to him, there is absolutely no material in that regard. Further, though the petitioner states that he had gone away to Bangalore, there is no material produced in that regard. Be that as it may, there is also no material to indicate that though the vehicle had been entrusted to Sri Ansar, the driver employed in the vehicle was a person who had been employed by the petitioner himself and he had trusted him to do only legal activities. Neither has Sri Ansar stated that the driver was engaged by him or by the petitioner or about the trust reposed in the driver. If these aspects are kept in view, the petitioner in fact has not tendered sufficient evidence to show that he had exercised all care to see that the vehicle is not used for illegal purpose and the vehicle belonging to him had been entrusted to a person in whom he had trust. In that regard, it will have to be concluded that he had allowed the vehicle to be used in such manner even if the involvement of the petitioner was not there. 7. Before parting with the matter, what is also necessary to be noticed is that at the first instance, the petitioner had also raised a contention that the Fast Track Court had no jurisdiction and this Court on taking note of such contention vide the observations made in the order sheet dated 21-1-2011 had issued Rule in the matter. 7. Before parting with the matter, what is also necessary to be noticed is that at the first instance, the petitioner had also raised a contention that the Fast Track Court had no jurisdiction and this Court on taking note of such contention vide the observations made in the order sheet dated 21-1-2011 had issued Rule in the matter. On that aspect of the matter, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 3044 of 2010, dated 28-11-2011 is brought to the notice of this Court to point out that subsequently the position of law has been clarified and it has been held that even the Court of Fast Track Judge would have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. In that view, the said legal contention urged in any event would have to be answered against the petitioner. 8. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions under which the proceedings have been initiated and the nature of enquiry contemplated therein and also the nature of burden to be discharged, the consideration of the available evidence by the first respondent as well as the Court below is appropriate and I see no reason to interfere with the orders which have been passed by the Court below. In that view, the petition, in my opinion, is without merit and the same is accordingly disposed of.