3. Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the above order on the ground that the applicant was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing by the prescribed authority and by the appellate authority. But from a perusal of the order of appellate authority, it is clear that prosecution witnesses were examined in presence of the applicant who also cross—examined them. Owner and driver also adduced evidence and vide letter dated 8~4—2007, the petitioner himself closed his evidence in the case and only thereafter the matter was heard and decided. It is also not in dispute that the driver has admitted, forest produce was loaded in the vehicle with his perm1ss1on. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the submission made by Shri Sahu that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing by the prescribed authority. No other points have been raised. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. ,[k Sd/—‘ N.K. Agrawa‘ Judge i