ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order passed by the revisional authority under Section 15-B of the Chhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (for short, ‘the Act of 1969’), whereby the learned revisional authority has set aside the order of the appellate authority under the Act of 1969 by which the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the authorised officer confiscating the four-wheeler Bolero bearing registration No.CG-18/D-0513 owned by the respondent herein. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 2.1) The respondent is owner of the aforesaid vehicle which on 15-9-2008, he had given to one Umesh Kumar Gupta – neighbour and Proprietor of Gupta Tent House for his personal use, but thereafter, it is the case of the respondent that Umesh Kumar Gupta used it for unauthorised transporting of teak logs and the vehicle was found involved in the commission of forest offence. Accordingly, confiscation proceeding was initiated against the vehicle owner (the respondent) and ultimately, by order dated 31-5-2010, the authorised officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Dantewada directed for confiscation of the vehicle owned by respondent and that order was assailed by the respondent before the appellate authority under Section 15-A of the Act of 1969 unsuccessfully and in revision filed, the revisional authority set aside the order confiscating the impugned vehicle holding that under Section 15(6) of the Act of 1969, the respondent/owner of the vehicle has proved that the vehicle was being used without his knowledge or his connivance and thereby granted the revision petition against which the instant writ petition has been filed questioning the order passed by the revisional authority branding the same as arbitrary and not covered by sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act of 1969. 3. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioners, would submit that the learned revisional authority is absolutely unjustified in granting the revision by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and particularly, concurrent finding ought not to have been interfered with by the revisional authority and more particularly, material brought on record sufficiently demonstrates that forest offence has been committed with knowledge or connivance of the respondent herein, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to support the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State/petitioners and considered her submissions and also perused the available original record of the authorised officer with utmost circumspection. 6. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to support the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State/petitioners and considered her submissions and also perused the available original record of the authorised officer with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly and undisputedly, the impugned vehicle is owned by the respondent herein and that vehicle was found involved in the commission of forest offence/transporting teak logs of 28 pieces (0.700 cu.mtr.) pursuant to which forest offence No.2944/2012 dated 15-9-2008 was registered in which the respondent being owner of the vehicle was also noticed and ultimately, upon hearing the parties including the respondent herein, the learned authorised officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Dantewada by order dated 31-5-2010 proceeded to confiscate the vehicle finding that the respondent being owner of the vehicle did not took reasonable and necessary precaution while owning the vehicle and it was found involved in the commission of forest offence by recording his conclusion by order dated 31-5-2010 which states as under: - fu"d"kZ %& foospuk vf/kdkjh ds tkap izfrosnu ,oa okgu ekfyd ds }kjk fn;k x;k c;ku izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh ,oa mi oue.Mykf/kdkjh nUrsokM+k ds le{k vfHk;kstu ,oa cpko i{k ds lkf{k;ksa ds dFku dk ifj'khyu fuEu fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa dks dsUnz esa j[kdj fd;k x;k %& ¼1½ D;k okgu ¼cksysjks½ Øekad lh-th- 18@Mh&0513 ouksit 28 ux ¾ 0-700 ?k-eh- lkxkSu fpjku ds voS/k ifjogu esa fyIr ik;h xbZ Fkh \ ¼2½ ;fn okgu ouksit ds voS/k ifjogu esa fyIr Fkh rks D;k okgu ekfyd dh euksuqdwyrk Fkh \ vfHk;kstu i{k ds lkf{k;ksa ds dFku ls ;g rF; izekf.kr gksrk gS fd okgu Øekad lh-th- 18@Mh&0513 ¼cksysjks½ ls 28 ux lkxkSu fpjku dk voS/k ifjogu okgu ekfyd ds fe= Jh mes'k xqIrk }kjk fd;k tk jgk FkkA Jh mes'k xqIrk }kjk ;g Lohdkj Hkh fd;k x;k gS fd eSa mDr lkxkSu fpjku dks ysdj vk jgk Fkk rFkk ou foHkkx ds deZpkfj;ksa dks ns[kdj Jh vk'kh"k tSuk okgu pkyd dk ekSds ls Qjkj gks tkuk rFkk iSny Hkkxdj okgu ekfyd Jh jkds'k egs'ojh dks nUrsokM+k esa vkdj crkuk fd ou foHkkx ds yksx okgu dks idM+ fy;s gSaA Jh mes'k dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jh vk'kh"k tSuk dk ;g dguk fd cYc cspdj okil vkrs le; jksM Økl djrs le; dqN yksx ydM+h dks NksM+dj Hkkx x;s ftls ge mBkdj ou foHkkx dks lqiqnZ esa nsus gsrq ysdj vkdj jgs FksA cpko i{k ds bl dFku dh lafnX/krk fuEu dkj.k ls iq"V gksrh gS] ¼1½ ;fn dksbZ xzkeh.k ydM+h dks NksM+dj Hkkxrk gS rks FkksM+h nwj tkdj va/ksjs esa Nqidj ;g ns[kus dk iz;kl djrk gS fd okgu esa fdrus yksx gS] vkSj dkSu yksx gS] dqy 28 ux fpjku dks Qsaddj Hkkxus okyksa dh la[;k de ls de 8 ls 14 yksxksa ds chp jgk gksxkA ;fn okgu ls rhu yksx mrjdj ydM+h dks yksM djrs gS rks os yksxksa esa ls dksbZ u dksbZ ikl vkdj ;g tkuus dk iz;kl djrk gS fd ;s yksx dkSu gS] dgha ou foHkkx&iqfyl foHkkx ds deZpkjh rks ugha gS ;k dksbZ vkSj gSA ;fn dksbZ vkSj gksus ij ydM+h dks bl rjg ls vklkuh ls ys tkus ugha nsrs gSA os yksx viuk izfrjks/k djus dk iz;kl djrs gSaA ¼2½ ;fn ou foHkkx dks lqiqnZ esa nsus dh fu;r ls ydM+h dks Hkjdj yk jgs Fks rks Jh vk'kh"k dqekj tSuk okgu pkyd }kjk ou foHkkx ds veyk dks ns[kdj iSny nUrsokM+k Hkkx tkuk vkSj okgu ekfyd Jh jkds'k egs'ojh dks tkdj crkuk dh xkM+h Ql xbZ gS] ou foHkkx okys idM+ fy;s gSaA ¼3½ cpko i{k ds lk{kh Jh vkseizdk'k ekyoh; ,oa jktdqekj ekyoh; ds c;ku ls ;g ifjyf{kr ugha gksrk fd okgu ekfyd us vius okgu dk xyr mi;ksx u djus gsrq dgha dksbZ funsZ'k vkfn fn;k gksA ;g ckr okgu ekfyd us Lor% Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gSA vr% bl vk/kkj ij ;g fl) gksrk gS fd cksysjks okgu Øekad lh-th- 18@Mh&0513 ou vijk/k dkfjr djus esa iz;qDr gqbZ gS rFkk okgu ekfyd ou vijk/k esa tIr okgu dk mi;ksx okgu ekfyd dh euksuqdwyrk ds fcuk fd;k x;k gS] ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gS rFkk ouksit ou foHkkx dks lqiqnZ gsrq ifjogu djuk bl vk'k; dks izekf.kr djus gsrq izLrqr rF; fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrs gSA bl ?kVuk ls Jh mes'k dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jh vk'kh"k tSuk okgu pkyd o okgu ekfyd ds dFku dh lR;rk ij iz'ufpUg yxkrk gSA bl izdkj ;g rF; iq"V gks jgk gS fd okgu Øekad lh- th- 18@Mh&0513 ls 28 ux ¾ 0-700 ?k-eh- lkxkSu fpjku dk voS/k ifjogu okgu ekfyd dh euksuqdwyrk ls fd;k tk jgk FkkA vr% Hkkjrh; ou vf/kfu;e 1927 dh/kkjk 52 ,oa N-x- ouksit¼O;kikj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e 1969 dh/kkjk 15 esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq;s eSa ,u-vkj- [kwaVs] l-o-la- izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh ,oa mi oue.Mykf/kdkjh nUrsokM+k vkns'k nsrk gwa fd & & & & 7. In exercise of power conferred under Section 15 of the Act of 1969, the aforesaid order was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal before the appellate authority, but in revision preferred before the revisional authority at the instance of the respondent herein, the revisional authority set aside the order of the appellate authority and that of the authorised officer confiscating the impugned vehicle which has resulted in filing of the instant writ petition. 8. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 5 of the Act of 1969 which provides restriction on purchase or transport of specified forest produce. It prescribes that on the issue of a notification under sub-section (3) of Section 1 with respect to any area, no person other than, (a) the State Government; (b) an officer of the State Government authorised in writing in that behalf; or (c) an agent in respect of the unit in which the specified forest produce is grown or found; shall purchase or transport such specified forest produce in such area. Section 15 of the Act of 1969 provides for search and seizure of property liable to confiscation. Sub-section (4) of Section 15 is a provision which provides for confiscation. If the authorised officer is satisfied that forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate the specified forest produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles, etc.. However, sub-section (5) of Section 15 provides a detailed procedure to be complied by the authorised officer before passing the order of confiscation. Similarly, subsection (6) of Section 15 provides as under: - “(6) No order of confiscation under sub-section (4) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other articles (other than specified forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of subsection (5) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, 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 objects aforesaid for commission of an offence under this Act.” 9. A careful perusal of sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act of 1969 would show that no order of confiscation of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other articles (other than specified forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (5), which includes owner of the vehicle also, proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, etc. 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 objects aforesaid for commission of an offence under this Act. 10. In the matter of State of M.P. v. Suresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 1017 , Section 15(6) of the Act of 1969 came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in which considering the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 15, their Lordships observed as under:- “8. A bare reading of sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam quoted hereinabove shows that the burden is on the owner to prove the satisfaction of the authorised officer that his vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precautions were taken by him against use of his truck for the commission of an offence under this Adhiniyam. ...” 11. Similarly, Section 15(6) of the Act of 1969 also came up for consideration before the M.P. High Court in the matter of State of M.P. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, 1991(I) MPWN (66 ) in which the vehicle was confiscated but the owner proved ignorance of commission of forest offence, the M.P. High Court held that vehicle could not have been confiscated. It has been further held that the owner has established that the timber did not belong to the owner nor was it being carried to any place at the instance of the owner, and observed as under: - “… The authorised officer, therefore, held that the non-applicant had failed to prove that he had no knowledge of commission of offence in relation to the property found. This Court has, therefore, gone through the statements of not only the witnesses mentioned above, but also the statements of persons seizing the property. This Court has, therefore, gone through the statements of not only the witnesses mentioned above, but also the statements of persons seizing the property. The statements of non-applicant and his witnesses including the driver and helper of the tractor fairly establish that the timber did not belong to the non-applicant nor was it being carried to any place at the instance of the non-applicant. The evidence sufficiently establishes that the tractor was sent by the son of the non-applicant to village Basaha to transport personal belongings of Neelkant. In spite of it, there are certain discrepancies on non-vital matters in the statement. In a Court of law, those discrepancies would be no consequence. Even if it be held that those discrepancies may create suspicion about the truthfulness of the story, suspicion by itself would not be enough to discredit the entire evidence of these persons. It was open to the State to adduce evidence to establish to the contrary, which has not been done. Under the circumstances, a Court of law acting independently would not be able to take any different view of the matter than the one taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.” 12. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down in Suresh Kumar’s case (supra) and Ram Gopal Sharma’s case (supra), it is quite vivid that the burden was upon the respondent/owner of the vehicle to prove to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that his vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the use of Bolero vehicle for commission of forest offence under the Act of 1969. 13. 13. In order to discharge the said burden which lies upon the respondent herein under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act of 1969, the respondent has examined himself on 3-8-2009, in his statement before the authorised officer, he has clearly stated that his Bolero vehicle was borrowed by Umesh Gupta one of his neighbours and Proprietor of Gupta Tent House, for personal use and considering the fact that Umesh Gupta had already taken his vehicle for his personal use previously also, he had handed-over the vehicle’s key to Umesh Gupta and thereafter Umesh Gupta had taken his vehicle and in the same night at 9.00-9.15 p.m., driver of Umesh Gupta came and informed him that his vehicle has been caught by the officials of Forest Department, then he called on his phone to Umesh Gupta and then he (respondent) also reached to the spot and found that the vehicle was found in the commission of forest offence. 14. Umesh Gupta, who had borrowed the vehicle of the respondent, has also been examined before the authorised officer and he had tried to explain that he had taken the vehicle for some personal purpose, then all of a sudden, in the night, when some persons standing therein noticing the Bolero light left the wooden logs on the road and they have collected the wooden logs for the purpose of depositing it in the forest depot and in the meanwhile, they were trapped by the forest officers. Similar statement has been made by Ashish Kumar Jaina – driver of the vehicle, who immediately after noticing the presence of forest officers absconded from the spot. 15. Furthermore, as noticed herein, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer in his finding, as quoted herein-above in preceding paragraphs, has clearly recorded a finding relying upon the statements of other defence witnesses that the respondent being owner of the vehicle did not take reasonable and necessary precautions against the use of the Bolero vehicle for commission of offence under the Act of 1969. As such, it is quite established from the statements of the respondent herein – owner of the vehicle, Umesh Kumar Gupta – user of the vehilce at that time, and Ashish Kumar Jaina – driver, that the timber did not belong to the respondent nor it was being carried to any place at the instance of the respondent herein and evidence on record would show that the Bolero vehicle was taken by Umesh Kumar Gupta being neighbour and professional friend of the respondent herein to transport some personal articles to some place. 16. Furthermore, the State/petitioners herein have only relied upon the conduct of driver Ashish Kumar Jaina who left the vehicle and absconded immediately from the spot to inform the respondent that his vehicle has been caught by the forest officials, but they did not adduce any evidence to discharge their initial burden that the respondent was involved in the forest offence and the vehicle was used with his knowledge and connivance. However, the respondent – owner has sufficiently proved that the vehicle was being used by Umesh Kumar Gupta without his knowledge or any kind of connivance for transporting teak wood illegally. The respondent has discharged the burden i.e. first part of Section 15(6) of the Act of 1969 by showing that the vehicle was used for commission of offence without his knowledge and he has also clearly established that it was not used with his connivance, as Ashish Kumar Jaina was employed by his employer Umesh Kumar Gupta and both Umesh Kumar Gupta & Ashish Kumar Jaina were present in the vehicle. 17. Even the petitioners/State could not allege and prove that the impugned vehicle was being used by Umesh Gupta with knowledge and connivance of the respondent – owner and the only finding of the authorised officer is that the respondent – owner did not take reasonable and necessary precautions against use of vehicle in forest offence. The act of the respondent – owner in not taking reasonable and necessary precautions would not strengthen the case of the State. It is not the case of the petitioners/State that the teak logs belong to the respondent herein and same were being taken at the instance of the respondent or being taken to a place indicated by the respondent. The act of the respondent – owner in not taking reasonable and necessary precautions would not strengthen the case of the State. It is not the case of the petitioners/State that the teak logs belong to the respondent herein and same were being taken at the instance of the respondent or being taken to a place indicated by the respondent. As such, the respondent has discharged his burden under Section 15(6) of the Act of 1969 vested on him and has clearly established that his vehicle was being used for commission of forest offence without his knowledge and connivance and the prosecution has failed to establish the connivance of the respondent herein with Umesh Kumar Gupta & Ashish Kumar Jaina. As such, the finding recorded by the learned revisional Court that the respondent has discharged his burden and proved that the vehicle was being used without his knowledge or connivance with driver Ashish Kumar Jaina and other person Umesh Kumar Gupta is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority setting aside the order of confiscation is strictly in accordance with law. 18. In the result, we do not find any merit or perversity in the order setting aside the order of confiscation duly affirmed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the order of the revisional authority by directing dismissal of the instant writ petition. 19. The writ petition is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).