JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 1st August, 2001 passed by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Jharkhand in Revision Case No. (C)-10/2000 and also for quashing the order dated 3rd April, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Miscellaneous Confiscation Case No. 7/1999-2000 as well as the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa in Confiscation Case No. C-4/1998, whereby the truck of the petitioner, bearing Registration No. BR18-9477, has been confiscated. 3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is the registered owner of the truck, bearing Registration No. BR18-9477. The said truck was seized by the Range Officer, Gamharia in the night of 29/30th December, 1998 with an allegation that there were discrepancies between the quantities, sizes and species of the timber found loaded in the aforesaid truck in comparison with the particulars of the timber i.e. forest produce mentioned in the Transit Permit No. 133658 dated 29th December, 1998 issued by the Range Officer, Noamundi Range and pursuant to the seizure of the truck and the forest produce, a first information report was also lodged. Subsequently, a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Act 9 of 1990) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for confiscation of the truck of the petitioner. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa vide order dated 24th July, 1999 confiscated the truck of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa under Section 52-A of the Act. However, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 3rd April, 2000. Aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 52-B of the Act. The said revision petition was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand. Thus, the petitioner has challenged all the said three orders in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely ignorant about commission of forest offence for which the truck of the petitioner was confiscated. Thus, the petitioner has challenged all the said three orders in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely ignorant about commission of forest offence for which the truck of the petitioner was confiscated. Neither the petitioner nor the driver/cleaner of the truck had any knowledge about commission of the alleged forest offence. It is also submitted that the aforesaid truck was a public carrier/commercial vehicle and on 28th December, 1998 it was sent to Bara Jamda for loading iron ore for being transported to the factory of M/s. Usha Martin. Unfortunately, the loading agent of M/s. Usha Martin could not get the iron ore loaded on the said truck on that day as the quota had already been exhausted and he, accordingly, asked the driver to wait for few days more before the truck could be loaded with iron ore for M/s. Usha Martin. During that period, the truck was waiting at Bara Jamda itself and one J.B. Chowra, a licensee/owner of Saw Mill at Bara Jamda, engaged the said truck for transporting timber. A transit permit was also issued for the said purpose in the name of one Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, purchaser of the said timber. Learned counsel further submits that under the said situation, the driver and the cleaner of the truck had no occasion to have any suspicion. Moreover, the Forest Officials were also present at the loading point for supervising the loading work and were affixing hammer marks on each piece of timber under their supervision. After loading of the said truck, transit permit and challan were duly handed over to the driver for transporting the said forest produce to Chaibasa. Learned counsel also submits that since in the aforesaid circumstances, neither the petitioner nor the driver/cleaner had any knowledge with regard to the fact that the timber loaded in the truck were not completely matching with the particulars mentioned in the transit challan and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner, being the owner of the truck, committed any forest offence. Thus, the order of confiscation of the truck is erroneous. Thus, the order of confiscation of the truck is erroneous. Learned Divisional Forest Officer, the appellate authority and the revisional authority completely overlooked the provisions of Section 52(5) of the Act, which makes it mandatory for the confiscating authority to record his satisfaction with regard to the knowledge of the concerned person in commission of forest offence. 5. No one appears on behalf of the State. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa, the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand have been justified. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that since the petitioner's vehicle was used in commission of forest offence, the order of confiscation has rightly been passed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that neither the Confiscating Authority (Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa) nor the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority considered the provisions of Section 52(5) of the Act, which reads as under:- "52. Seizure and its procedure for the property liable for confiscation:- (1)...... (2)...... (3)...... (4)...... (5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other articles (other than the forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, arms, vehicles, 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 the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence." 7. On plain reading of Section 52(5) of the Act, it is clear that the Confiscating Authority cannot pass any order of confiscation of any tools, vehicles etc. if the concerned person proves that the same were used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent. 8. On plain reading of Section 52(5) of the Act, it is clear that the Confiscating Authority cannot pass any order of confiscation of any tools, vehicles etc. if the concerned person proves that the same were used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator and Others vs. Sart Ramchandra Kale, 1998 (1) PLJR (SC) 21, upheld the order of the High Court, setting aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities 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. Further, in the case of Naresh Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2002 (1) JLJR 660 , in Paragraph-6, this Court has held as under: "6. In the instant case, from the order passed by the Confiscating Authority, it appears that petitioners took specific defence that they had no knowledge that the Sal Rolas were cut from the forest area. The Confiscating Authority drawn an inference that the owner of the Vehicle had knowledge about the offence as because transportation of Sal Rolas was illegal. Finding of the Confiscating Authority that the owner of the vehicle had not taken reasonable precaution against the use of the vehicle is not supported by evidence. The Confiscating Authority ought to have discussed the evidences before recording that finding. The Appellate Authority passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal without passing a reasoned order. The Revisional Authority took the view that since the forest produce was being transported without any transit permit, a foreseen offence has been committed and therefore the order of the Confiscating Authority needs no interference. In my opinion, the revisional Authority has not correctly appreciated the law while passing the order for confiscating of vehicle. The matter needs reconsideration by the Divisional Forest Officer, who is Confiscating Authority." 9. Coming back to the fact of the present case, it appears that the petitioner had consistently been taking the plea that he had no knowledge that his truck would be used for commission of forest offence at the instance of one Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal (purchaser of forest produce) and J.B. Chowra (owner of the saw mill). Coming back to the fact of the present case, it appears that the petitioner had consistently been taking the plea that he had no knowledge that his truck would be used for commission of forest offence at the instance of one Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal (purchaser of forest produce) and J.B. Chowra (owner of the saw mill). Despite the fact that the said specific plea was taken by the petitioner regarding lack of his knowledge as well as absence of any proof of his connivance in commission of forest offence, none of the impugned orders suggests that the said plea of the petitioner was considered/appreciated. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders have been passed in contravention of the provision of Section 52(5) of the Act and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the order dated 1st August, 2001 passed in Revision Case No. (C)-10/2000, the order dated 3rd April, 2000 passed in Misc. Confiscation Case No. 7/1999-2000 and the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa in Confiscation Case No. C-4/1998 are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.