JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
2. This revision has been filed against the judgment of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaharanpur dated 10.9.1985 dismissing an appeal from an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Shaharanpur dated 31.10.1983. By the said order, the A.D.M. had confiscated the vehicle and in lieu of the confiscation the revisionist was allowed to pay Rs. 40,000/-. That order has been challenged in the present case.
3. The facts of this case were that in the intervening night of 11/12.9.1981 police of P.S. Manglaur arrested four persons including one Sanawar Khan, the driver of the truck No. URM 91 and from the truck in question 39 bags of Bhang weighing 12 quintal were found. The other accused persons, but not the revisionist were present on the spot. The revisionist is said to be the owner of the truck. The Arrested persons were challaned under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act and confiscation proceedings were initiated before the District Magistrate, Saharanpur.
4. I have perused the judgement of the Appellate Court and the judgement of the Magistrate.
5. It is argued that the revisionist had no knowledge of the contraband being carried on the vehicle and he had simply given his truck for carrying sand, but this offence, if any, was committed by the other accused without his knowledge. As findings of facts have been recorded that the revisionist must have known of this illegal user of his truck, I think it would not be possible to interfere with those Endings of fact here. Moreover, looking to the substantial quantity of Bhang (12 quintals, 39 bags), which were found in the ruck, it will be difficult to reach the conclusion that the revisionist was totally unaware of this illegal use of this vehicle. Moreover, under Section 72(5)(b) of the Excise Act, the owner of vehicle can only prevent the confiscation of the vehicle, if he can prove to the satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying contraband goods without his knowledge or his agent's knowledge of in connivance. Furthermore, the provision requires that the onus lies on the owner or his agent to take all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. Now, admittedly the accused Sanawar Khan was the revisionist's driver and thus he would be his agent also. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that all reasonable precautions were taken for preventing this illegal use of the vehicle. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the courts below directing confiscation of the vehicle. One other point has been raised here that the Additional Collector who conducted the confiscation proceedings under Section 22 of the Excise Act was not authorised and there is no authorization on record. 1 find that this point was not even urged before the A.D.M. or the Appellate Court presumably for the reason that the concerned Additional Collector must have been duly authorised, hence there is no force in this contention. Also I do not think that in the absence of objections on this point, it was mandatory for the A.D.M. to produce an authorization letter, which empowered him to initiate the proceedings under Section 72 on record.
6. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this revision and it is dismissed.