JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The order of confiscation of a truck bearing registration No. ORX 4614 u/s 56 (2-a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) passed by the Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Division, Khurda (hereinafter referred to as (the Authorised Officer) and affirmed by the Sessions Judge. Puri has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. The facts in brief may be recounted. The Petitioner is the owner of the truck. Though himself was its driver, on account of his illness he engaged one Rajkishore Pradhan as driver thereof (hereinafter referred to as ?the driver?). On the relevant date, namely, 22-9-1985 the truck was engaged in transporting metal chips from Tapang Stone Quarry to Bhubaneswar. On that day one Kedar Baliarsing approached the driver for transport of furniture from village Goudiapada near Jankia Police Station beyond the Tapang Stone Quarry to Bhubaneswar on hire. The driver agreed loaded metal chips and proceeded to village Goudiapada. In that village the metal chips were unloaded and 355 pieces of sized teak planks and timber were loaded. In order to conceal the same, the metal chips were reloaded, thus giving an impression that the truck was transporting only metal chips. Early in the morning (23-9-1985), however, some police officers and forest officers on patrol duty saw the truck transporting metal chips at a place where there was no stone quarry and so they got suspicious and detained the truck. On inspection, they found that sized teak planks and timber were being transported concealed under metal chips without any timber transit permit or authority. They seized the planks and timber as well as, the truck on suspicion that a forest offence had been committed and produced the same with a report before the Authorised Officer. The Authorised Officer initiated a proceeding u/s 56 of the Act, served notice on the Petitioner and gave opportunity to him to defend his case. The defence of the Petitioner was that he had no knowledge that the driver was transporting teak planks and timber unauthorisedly. He had not permitted the driver for transport of forest produce and in view of the stringent law had prohibited him for transport of such goods. The defence of the Petitioner was that he had no knowledge that the driver was transporting teak planks and timber unauthorisedly. He had not permitted the driver for transport of forest produce and in view of the stringent law had prohibited him for transport of such goods. Therefore, for the illegal act of the driver, the truck, which he had purchased by obtaining loan from the Orissa State Financial Corporation, was not liable for confiscation. The Authorised Officer recorded statements, conducted enquiry and heard the Petitioner. He negatived the defence and held that the Petitioner was unable to prove that he had neither knowledge nor connivance for illegal transport of forest produce in the truck. Therefore, he directed confiscation thereof. The Petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge, Puri, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1986. The appeal came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge. Puri, who by the impugned order upheld the order of confiscation. 3. Mr. Ganeswar Rath learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, strenuously urged that the Petitioner had succeeded to prove that he had neither know ledge nor connivance for illegal transport of forest produce as envisaged in Sub-section (2-c) of Section 56 of the Act and so the truck was not liable for confiscation. We need not examine this contention in view of the order we propose to pass. 4. For a proper decision of the case before us the following two points are necessary and relevant: (1) whether the Authorised Officer as well as the learned appellate authority were satisfied that a forest offence had been committed in respect of the forest produce; and (2) whether the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of confiscation was decided by the appropriate appellate authority. 5. For decision of the first point it is necessary to quote Sub-section (1) and (2-a) of Section 56 of the Act: 56. Seizure of property liable to confiscation: (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. Seizure of property liable to confiscation: (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. x x x x (2-a) where an authorised Officer seizes any forest produce under Sub-section (l) or where any such forest produce is produced before him under Sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the forest: produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence. (Underlined by us ) On a plain and harmonious construction of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that confiscation of forest produce and the vehicle of transport etc. can be made only if the Authorised Officer is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof. In other words, the Authorised Officer must record a dear and categorical finding that in respect of the seized forest produce, a forest offence has been committed so as to confiscate the same, as well as, the vehicle used for committing any such offence. Sub-sections (1) and (2-A) of Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 are identical to sub. Sections (1) and (2-a) of Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The aforesaid provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 came up for interpretation in a different context in Divisional Forest Officer and Anr. v. G. V. Sudhakar Rao and Ors. 1986 S.C. C. (Cri.) 34. A.P. Sen, J. speaking for the Court held: .... Under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act, where a Forest Officer makes a report of seizure of any timber or forest produce and produces the seized timber before the authorised officer along with a report u/s 44 (2), the authorised officer can direct confiscation to Government of such timber or forest produce and the implements ete.. If he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed irrespective of the fact whether the accused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for the commission of a forest offence u/s 20 or 29 of the Act. If he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed irrespective of the fact whether the accused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for the commission of a forest offence u/s 20 or 29 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid provisions in the Act, as wen as, the principle laid down by the Supreme, Court, it was necessary for the Authorised Officer to record a positive finding in support of the order of confiscation passed by him that he was satisfied that a forest offence had been committed in respect of the seized planks and timber so as to direct confiscation of the forest produce and the vehicle, namely, the truck used in the commission of such offence. On making a reference to the order of the Authorised Officer, it will be found that he has not arrived at a categorical finding that he was satisfied that a forest offence had been committed in respect thereof. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order did not also arrive at any such finding, although he made a reference to the notice issued for service on the Petitioner in which reference was made to Section 46 of the Act for contravention of Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. As there was non-compliance of Sub-section (1) and (2-a) of Section 56 of the Act, the order of confiscation of the vehicle which was alleged to have been used in the commission of a forest offence cannot be sustained. 6. For decision of the second point, it is necessary to quote Sub-section (2-e) of Section 56 of the Act: (2-e). Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-section (2-a) of Sub-section (2-d) may within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized, and the District Judge shall after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard pass such order as he may think fit and the order of the District Judge so passed shall be final. (Underlined by us ) It appears from the aforesaid provision that an appeal against the order of confiscation by the Authorised Officer lies to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property ha? (Underlined by us ) It appears from the aforesaid provision that an appeal against the order of confiscation by the Authorised Officer lies to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property ha? been seized and it is the District Judge who is competent to hear and pass such order as he may think fit and such order shall be final. Obviously enough, in this case the memorandum of appeal was addressed to the District Judge, Puri, but the appeal was registered as a Criminal Appeal. The impugned order (Annexure-3) was passed by the Sessions Judge. Puri. The District Judge and the Sessions Judge might be the same person and in this case we can take judicial notice of the fact that the same person functioned as the District Judge and sessions Judge. But the functions of a District Judge under the CPC and the functions of a Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure are quite distinct and different. Sub-section (2-e) envisages an appeal to the District Judge and not to the Sessions Judge. As a matter of fact, the appeal was preferred to the District Judge and not to the Sessions Judge, but the appeal was disposed of by the latter. No doubt, it is a technical violation of the provisions of Sub-section (2-e) of Section 56 of the Act, yet a remote possibility of prejudice to the case of the Petitioner ill dividing his appeal by an authority not prescribed according to law cannot be excluded. In fact, there is possibility of a suggested argument that the appeal was, disposed of by a Judge having no jurisdiction according to Jaw. This being the position, the safer course is not to uphold the order patently passed without jurisdiction. 7. With great anxiety we take notice of the fact that Orissa, hereinbefore rich in forest wealth is gradually being denuded of its forests by unscrupulous smugglers and operators. Vast tracts in different parts of the State full of lush green forests and valuable trees of different varieties have vanished creating ecological imbalance and environmental pollution on account of growth of industries. For prevention of further denudation of forests, the legislature introduced sweeping changes in Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act by Orissa Amendment Act 9 of 1983. That is how stringent measures contained in the Section came into being. For prevention of further denudation of forests, the legislature introduced sweeping changes in Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act by Orissa Amendment Act 9 of 1983. That is how stringent measures contained in the Section came into being. If these stringent measures were not there, in view of the findings arrived at by us, we would have allowed the writ petition and released? the truck from confiscation. But, because of the legislative intention contained in the amended Section 56 of the Act. we consider it appropriate to set aside the orders passed by the Authorised Officer (Annexure-I) and that of the learned Sessions Judge (Annexure-3) and remit the case to the Authorised Officer for disposal in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Annexures 1 and 3 are quashed. The case is remitted to the Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Division, Khurda, for disposal in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall appear before him on 15-7-1987 to receive directions. No costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed