JUDGMENT A.K. Rath, J. - This petition challenges the judgment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Angul in F.A.O. No. 01 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of confiscation of the tractor and trolley bearing Registration Nos. OD-19C-8542 and OD-19C-8543 respectively along with seized forest produce passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Angul (T) Division, Angul. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ application are that on 14.04.2017, the then Range Officer, Chhendipada Range got reliable information about illegal transportation of timber from Patakamunda Revenue Forest. On the direction of the Range Officer, the Forester, Chhendipada and other forest officials proceeded to the spot. They noticed that a tractor and trolley bearing Registration Nos. OD-19-C 8542 and OD-19-C 8543 respectively were loaded with sal logs. Having seen the forest officials, the driver and other persons fled away from the spot. U.C. Pradhan, forester, seized the vehicle loaded with sal logs. Thereafter, U.D. Case No. 2 of 2017-18 was registered. After ascertaining the ownership of the vehicle, notice was issued to the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle. Since the petitioner could not produce any document in support of forest produce, the vehicle and the articles were seized. The Authorised Officer cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Angul (T) Division, Angul issued notice to the petitioner and enquired into the matter. During enquiry, five witnesses had been examined from the side of the prosecution. The petitioner examined himself as a witness. On an analysis of the evidence and other materials on record, the Authorised Officer came to hold that forest offence had been committed within the knowledge of the petitioner. Held so, he passed the order on 08.02.2018 confiscating the vehicle along with sal sizes. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of confiscation before the learned District Judge, Angul in F.A.O. No. 01 of 2018, which was eventually dismissed. 3. Heard Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge or connivance in commission of the forest offence. The petitioner's driver took the vehicle for transportation of sunflower seeds. The villagers kept nine pieces of sal sizes in his tractor due to enmity and informed the forest officials. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge or connivance in commission of the forest offence. The petitioner's driver took the vehicle for transportation of sunflower seeds. The villagers kept nine pieces of sal sizes in his tractor due to enmity and informed the forest officials. Thereafter, the forest officials seized the tractor along with sal sizes. The judgment of the learned appellate court is perverse. 5. On a scanning of the evidence on record, the learned appellate court came to hold that in a proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act'), the department has to prima facie show that the materials indicating involvement of the concerned vehicle in a forest offence. If the onus is discharged by the department, then burden shifts on the owner of the vehicle to establish that he had no knowledge or connivance in commission of the forest offence and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against misuse of the vehicle by his driver. The materials available on record and the seizure list indicate that at the relevant point of time nine pieces of sal sizes were being carried in the vehicle in question without any T.T. permit for which the sal sizes along with the vehicle were seized by the forest officials. The seized sal sizes are forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. The petitioner did not have any transit permit as required under Rule 4 of the Orissa Timber & other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. The plea taken by the petitioner in the confiscation proceeding, that his driver took the vehicle for transportation of sunflower seeds and the villagers kept nine pieces of sal sizes in his tractor due to enmity and informed the forest officials who seized the tractor along with sal sizes, is without any foundation. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the learned appellate court. 6. In State of Orissa represented through the Range Officer, Khurda, Forest Range v. Kiran Sankar Panda & others, 71 (1991) CLT 157, the Division Bench of this Court speaking through Mr. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the learned appellate court. 6. In State of Orissa represented through the Range Officer, Khurda, Forest Range v. Kiran Sankar Panda & others, 71 (1991) CLT 157, the Division Bench of this Court speaking through Mr. B.L. Hansaria, Chief Justice (as he then was) held as follows; "3......so far as confiscation of any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle is concerned, section 56 (2-c) has excluded the conception of mens rea by necessary implication, as already noted. We have said so because this section states that in case of confiscation of such articles, it is the owner who has to prove that the same had been used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the article in question. This would show that knowledge or connivance is assumed unless contrary is proved. The knowledge or connivance about which section 56 (2-c) has spoken is not confined to the owner but takes within its fold the knowledge or connivance of the agent, if any, or of the person in charge of the article in question. Not only this, this section further states that to escape the order of confiscation, it must be further proved that each of the concerned persons had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against the use of the article in question in respect of the commission of the forest offence. 4......to exclude the owner of the vehicle from vicarious liability, it would be sufficient for the owner to show that in fact he never openly or tacitly authorised the driver to carry any goods other than that he was authorised to ply the truck on hire, is not fully correct inasmuch as to escape from the vicarious liability it has to be established to the satisfaction of the concerned officer that the person in charge of the vehicle had also no knowledge or had not connived in the commission of the forest offence. This apart, it has to be further shown that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken by each of the persons named in section 56 (2-c) against the use of the vehicle for the commission of the forest offence. This apart, it has to be further shown that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken by each of the persons named in section 56 (2-c) against the use of the vehicle for the commission of the forest offence. As such, if the forest offence is committed even with the knowledge or connivance of the driver of the vehicle, the same would be liable to confiscation even though the owner might not have any knowledge or connivance in the matter..." 7. In Malatilata Samal and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2002 (II) OLR 216 , this Court held that the master is vicariously liable for any act committed by his agent or servant. The owner would be liable for any act or omission committed by the driver. 8. The ratio in Kiran Sankar Panda and Malatilata Samal (supra) applies with full force to the facts of this case as well. 9. In the ultimately analysis, the petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.