Vehicle confiscation and personal penalty require proof of owner's knowledge or involvement in smuggled goods transport.

Confiscation of a vehicle and personal penalty on its owner require material evidence showing the owner's involvement in, or knowledge of, the vehicle's use for transporting smuggled goods. The record here contained no such evidence; the adverse finding rested only on an unsupported assumption that ownership implied awareness of the truck's use. As no proof linked the owner to the smuggling activity or established conscious knowledge, the legal basis for confiscation and penalty was not made out, and both were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the truck and the personal penalty imposed on its owner were sustainable in the absence of evidence showing his involvement or knowledge that the vehicle was used for transporting smuggled teak wood.

Analysis: The record did not contain evidence linking the appellant to the transportation of smuggled goods or showing that he had knowledge of such use of the truck. The finding against him was based on an assumption that, as owner of the vehicle, he could not have been unaware of its use, but that conclusion was not supported by any material evidence. In the absence of proof of involvement or knowledge, the basis for confiscation and penalty was not made out.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the truck and the personal penalty were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---