THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.5550 of 2005 ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the State challenging the order, dated 15-12-2004 in C.M.A.No.32 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, reversing the order dated 24-10-2003 of the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Management Division, Tirupati, whereby he had ordered confiscation of a Car bearing registration No.AP-03-V-3220 of the respondent herein. The aforesaid vehicle of the respondent herein was seized while it was found transporting red sander logs clandestinely and proceedings were initiated under Section 44 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”) for confiscation of the said vehicle. After an enquiry, duly affording an opportunity to the respondent, it was held by the Authorised Officer that the vehicle was used for transporting contraband material and that though the respondent being the owner of the vehicle could have established his innocence, failed to do so. Accordingly, an order of confiscation was made holding that the vehicle was involved in the offence deliberately and intentionally with full knowledge and connivance of the owner of the vehicle. The respondent herein preferred an appeal against the said order in C.M.A.No.32 of 2003. The appellate authority accepted the plea of the respondent that the contraband was transported without his knowledge and accordingly set aside the confiscation order. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Forests and Sri P.Ray Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Normally, this court while exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would not go into the facts. However, the instant case requires focus on the record of evidence in order to see whether the appellate court has properly exercised its jurisdiction. It is true that under Section 44 (2) (2-C) of the Act, owner of the vehicle is entitled to establish his innocence and lack of knowledge of the commission of offence. In all such cases, whenever defence as to the lack of knowledge is taken, the burden squarely rests upon the owner to prove the said fact. In the instant case, the driver of the vehicle Avula Ramana and another person Narasimulu Delhi Babu were examined on behalf of the respondent. But, the evidence of these witnesses is not consistent and corroborate with each other. In the light of the inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence, the appellate authority has to scrutinise the evidence and then only, reach to a conclusion. However, the court below, without properly appreciating the evidence, addressed itself to irrelevant considerations. One of the reasons recorded by the appellate court while exonerating the respondent is that he is a retired bank officer and that there were no antecedents of his vehicles being involved in any forest offence and that there were no complaints against him that he was in the habit of sending his vehicles for transportation of contraband. Another reason shown by the court below is that the respondent was not accompanying the vehicle and he had entrusted his vehicle to his driver for a different purpose by taking all reasonable precautions. These reasons are wholly irrelevant. By no stretch of imagination, the innocence of the respondent can be drawn on these grounds. Clearly, the court below has misdirected itself while drawing conclusions on irrelevant considerations. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded for reconsideration. The appellate authority shall consider the matter afresh and decide the same basing on the record of evidence, after due notice to both the parties. Having regard to the fact that the matter is an old one, it is directed that the matter be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 07-08-2012 Prv