respondent No.1 before the IstAdditional Sessions Judge, Kanker and vide impugned order dated 25.5.2005 (Annexure P/1), the Court below allowed the revision setting aside order dated 26.10.2004 passed by Forest Conservator. Hence this petition. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioners/State submits that the revisional Court has erred in law while reversing the well reasoned orders passed by the forest authorities. He submits that as per provisions of sub-section (5) ofSection 52 oftheAct, 1927, burden lies on the owner of the vehicle to prove that he bad no knowledge of the vehicle being used in commission of forest offence, there was no connivance between the own^r and the driver/servant/agent and that the owner had taken reasonabje and necessary precautions against use of the vehicles for commission of any forest offence. He further submits that in the present case, respondent No.l/owner has not stated in his evidence that he had taken reasonable and necessary precautions while handing over his vehicle to his brother. He submits that even otherwise, as per Section 52(5) of the Act, 1927, the owner is not only required to make such statement that he had taken due care and precautions to prevent any misuse, but is also required to prove the same by leading sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the authorized officer. However, in his cross-examination, respondent No.1 has categorically stated that he had not given any authority to his brother Ghanshyam/driver of the vehicle for taking the vehicle anywhere and he (driver) used to follow his instructions only.
