Order.- This is a Criminal Revision case prefered by the State against the judgment of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Cr.A. No. 36 of 1977 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of confiscation of the lorry APQ 30 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal. 2. The confiscation order relating to the lorry was made by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal, in connection with a forest offence detected at about 2 a.m. on 8th October, 1976. The lorry APQ 30 was found transporting three tons of firewood obtained from some felled trees in a reserved forest area. It is common ground that the value of the fuel in the lorry was only Rs. 225. As per section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, the offence was compounded on condition that the present respondent, who was the offender, should pay a compounding fee of Rs. 900. It is also common case that the three tons firewood was retained by the Forest Department and the lorry also was seized. The The Divisional Forest Officer held that the compounding did not take in the release of the lorry. In the Officer’s opinion, the Department could confiscate the lorry since the compounding did not cover within its purview the seizure of the lorry as well. 3. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool reversed that order and directed release of the lorry after setting aside its confiscation. I am satisfied that this decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct. Section 44 of the Forest Act provides for seizure of the property liable for confiscation and the procedure thereon. Sub-section (1) thereof says that where there is reason to believe that forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber, or forest produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. Section 45 provides for confiscation of timber, forest produce etc. According to it, where a person is convicted of a forest offence, the Court sentencing him shall order confiscation to the Government of timber or forest produce in respect of which such offence was committed and of any tool, boat, vehicle other than a cart drawn by animals, vessel or other conveyance or any other article used in committing such offence. Section 59 confers on Forest Officers the power to compound offences. Sub-section (1) thereof says that any forest officer, specially empowered in this behalf by the Government may accept as compensation from any person who has committed or in respect of whom it can be reasonably inferred that he has committed, any forest offence, other than an offence other than an offence under section 52 or section 55. Thereafter, three modes of compounding the offence are given. If it is a trivial offence, the compounding fee shall not exceed fifty rupees. If it involves the release of forest produce, the compounding fee shall not be less than the value of the forest produce or more than four times such value as estimated by the Forest Officer. Thirdly, if the forest produce is one which should be retained by the Government, the compounding fee shall not in any case be less than the value of the forest produce or more than four times such value as estimated by such forest officer. Subsection (2) says that on receipt of the sum of money referred to in sub-section (1), by such officer, the accused person, if in custody, shall be discharged the property seized shall, if it is not to be so retained, be released; and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. 4. Admittedly, the Forest Officer competent in this behalf accepted the compounding of the offence on payment of Rs. 900 which amount was four times the value of the fuel that was being transported. Once the compounding fee is received, the property seized shall, if it is not to be so retained, be released, and what is more, no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. It is to be noted that the fuel of the value of Rs. 225 was retained by the Forest Department. The lorry which was seized then, according to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 59 shall be released; and according to clause (iii) or sub-section (2), no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. Since there is no conviction as postulated by section 45, there cannot be a confiscation of the lorry. 5. The lorry which was seized then, according to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 59 shall be released; and according to clause (iii) or sub-section (2), no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. Since there is no conviction as postulated by section 45, there cannot be a confiscation of the lorry. 5. Therefore, reading section 59 as a whole, including clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2), with section 45 I am of the opinion that once compounding fee has been paid the seized property shall be released excepting that part of the seized property which was to be retained by the Department and no further proceedings shall be taken against the offender or the property. This must necessarily mean that the lorry which has been seized, shall be released. In this view, I affirm the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and dismiss the Criminal Revision Case filed by the State.