Penal liability for contraband transport requires proof of knowledge or connivance, and the exact statutory clause must be specified.

A mere inconsistency in the appellant's statements about tractor ownership was insufficient to prove knowledge, involvement or connivance in transporting contraband, so penal liability could not rest on that basis alone. The penalty order was also legally defective because Section 112 was invoked without specifying the applicable clause, leaving the penal foundation uncertain. As the alleged participation was not established by surrounding circumstances or other implicated persons' statements, and the exact statutory clause was not identified, the confiscation-cum-penalty order could not be sustained and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant's alleged contradiction regarding ownership of the tractor was sufficient to establish knowledge of, or connivance in, the transportation of contraband and justify penalty; (ii) whether the penalty order was sustainable when it imposed punishment under Section 112 without specifying the applicable clause.

Issue (i): whether the appellant's alleged contradiction regarding ownership of the tractor was sufficient to establish knowledge of, or connivance in, the transportation of contraband and justify penalty.

Analysis: The confiscation and penalty proceedings proceeded on the basis that the tractor was connected with the smuggling operation, but the materials did not show that the appellant had been implicated by the other apprehended persons or that the surrounding circumstances established his participation in the offence. The alleged inconsistency between the appellant's statements regarding ownership was treated as decisive by the lower authority, yet that inconsistency by itself did not establish the requisite knowledge, involvement, or connivance for penalty.

Conclusion: The finding of knowledge and connivance was unsustainable and the penalty could not be upheld on this basis.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty order was sustainable when it imposed punishment under Section 112 without specifying the applicable clause.

Analysis: A penalty provision that contains distinct clauses requires the authority to state clearly which clause is invoked so that the penal basis is definite and ascertainable. The impugned order imposed penalty under Section 112 without indicating whether clause (a), clause (b), or both applied, rendering the penal order legally defective.

Conclusion: The penalty order was not sustainable for want of specification of the applicable clause under Section 112.

Final Conclusion: The impugned confiscation-cum-penalty order could not be sustained against the appellant and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty order under a provision containing separate clauses must clearly specify the exact clause relied upon, and a mere alleged contradiction on ownership, without more, is insufficient to establish knowledge or connivance for penal liability.

---