JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Can the cattle instrumental in the commission of forest offence under section 26(1)(d) and/or (f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (the Act) be confiscated under section 61-A(3) of the Act, is a point of some importance raised in this petition. 2. Factual background is : The petitioners Karna Gawali, Hira Gawali and Pandu Wade are nomadics who migrate along with their cattle from place to place. They had at the material time settled in the village Zari in district Chandrapur, which is in the vicinity of a forest. On 25-6-1988 herds of about 125 cattle were found grazing deep inside the compartment No. 345 of a reserved forest. The cattle belonged to the petitioners. Three graziers were looking after the cattle. With the help of about 150 labourers engaged by the forest officers the herds of cattle was attempted to be caught. On noticing the forest officers and the labourers, graziers ran away. 65 cattle heads were caught in the forest and a large number ran towards the village where they were chased and caught. The cattle was seized. Some statements were recorded and a show cause notice under section 61(B) was issued to the petitioners as to why the cattle seized should not be confiscated under section 61-A(3). The petitioners admitted that they had no licence for grazing cattle in the forest, that the cattle had entered the forest and that they were liable to pay fine. Indeed they even showed willingness to pay the fine. One of their contention was that they had gone out to the market and cattle strayed in the forest by the animal instinct. The second respondent after holding enquiry recorded a belief that forest offence of pasturing cattle and/or permitting cattle to trespass under section 26(1)(d) and damaging the tress under section 26(1)(f) were committed and the said cattle were instrumental in the commission of those offences. He, therefore, ordered the cattle seized under section 52(1) to be confiscated under section 61-A. The said order was challenged in appeal under section 61-D before the Sessions Judge, who was pleased to remand the matter to the second respondent for fresh inquiry. Accordingly fresh inquiry was also held. 7 persons were examined. The petitioners cross-examined them through a lawyer and also examined defence witnesses. After hearing the petitioners order of confiscation was made once again. Accordingly fresh inquiry was also held. 7 persons were examined. The petitioners cross-examined them through a lawyer and also examined defence witnesses. After hearing the petitioners order of confiscation was made once again. Appeal was carried to the Sessions Judge by the petitioners but without any success and hence this petition. Facts found are---(i) cattle were unauthorisedly postured and/or permitted to be trespassed in the reserved forest by the petitioners with the help of graziers, (ii) the cattle ate and damaged forest produce such as grass, young plants of bamboos and other tree saplings and caused damage to the tune of Rs. 4,68 lakhs. (iii) the guilt was even admitted and (iv) the defence of cattle straying in the forest merely by animal instinct despite all possible precautions by the owners was incorrect. 3. A brief resume of salient provisions of the Act relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the points involved may be made first. Section 2(1) of the Act defines the term 'cattle'. Section 2(3) the term 'forest-offence', section 2(6) the term 'timber' and section 2(7) the term 'tree'. Section 26(1) gives the list of forest offences. Sub-section (d) and (f) read thus: "26. Acts prohibited in such forests--- (1) Any person who--- .. ... ... ... (d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass; .. .. ... ... (f) fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree or strips of the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, the same." ... ... ... ... ... Section 52 deals with the subject of seizure of property liable to confiscation and forfeiture. Section 55 deals with forfeiture by a convicting Court. Section 61-A to 61-G as inserted by the Indian Forest (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. VII of 1985) deal with the power and procedure for confiscation of property which is independent of a criminal prosecution. Section 61-A and 61-B are material and hence we reproduce them for ready reference. Section 55 deals with forfeiture by a convicting Court. Section 61-A to 61-G as inserted by the Indian Forest (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. VII of 1985) deal with the power and procedure for confiscation of property which is independent of a criminal prosecution. Section 61-A and 61-B are material and hence we reproduce them for ready reference. "61-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provision of this Chapter or any other law, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other notified forest produce which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of section 52 shall without any unreasonable delay produce it, together with all tools, boat, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence, before an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette, not being an officer below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as "the authorised officer"). (2) The State Government may authorise one or more officers for any local area under sub-section (1). (3) Where an authorised officer seizes under sub-section (1) of section 52 any timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other notified forest-produce which is the property of the State Government or any such property is produced before an authorised officer under sub-section (1) and he is satisfied that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of such property, such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such forest-offence, order confiscation of the property so seized together with all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence. (4) (a) Where the authorised officer, after passing an order of confiscation under sub-section (3), is of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, he may order the confiscated property or any part thereof and the tools, boars, vehicles and cattle to be sold by public auction. (4) (a) Where the authorised officer, after passing an order of confiscation under sub-section (3), is of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, he may order the confiscated property or any part thereof and the tools, boars, vehicles and cattle to be sold by public auction. (b) Where any confiscated property or the tools, boats, vehicles and cattle are sold, as aforesaid, the proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto shall, where the order of confiscation made under this section is set aside or annualled by an order under section 61-C or 61-D, be paid to the owner thereof or to the person from whom it was seized as may be specified in such order. 61-B. (1) No order confiscation any timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other notified forest-produce, tools, boars, vehicles or cattle shall be made under section 61-A except after notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized and considering his objection, if any : Provided that no order confiscating a motor vehicle shall be made except after giving notice in writing to the registered owner therefore, of in the opinion of the authorised officer it is practicable to do so, and considering his objections, if any (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any tool, boar vehicle or cattle shall be made under section 61-A if the owner of the tool, boar, vehicle or cattle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying the timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other notified forest-produce without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the tool, boat, vehicle or cattle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use." Section 61-C deals with the revisional power and section 61-D with the appellate power. Section 61-E clarifies that the award of any confiscation under section 61-A or section 61-C or section 61-D shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment under the Act or any other law. The Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 is applied to certain cattle trespass in a reserved forest by section 70 of the Act which permits seizure and impounding of cattle by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. The Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 is applied to certain cattle trespass in a reserved forest by section 70 of the Act which permits seizure and impounding of cattle by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. By section 71, fines fixed under the Cattle Trespass Act is altered. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that power of confiscation of cattle under section 61-A is confined only to cases where they are used for carrying timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other notified forest produce and that the cattle instrumental in the commission of offence under section 26(1)(d) or (f) are not intended to be brought in the net of confiscatory power. We find it extremely difficult to accept this contention, taking into consideration the plain language used in section 52 and section 61-A and so also the object behind the Act No. VII of 1985. Section 52 refers to all varieties of forest offences and admits of no exception. So is the case with section 55 and section 61-A. Object behind the Act No. VII of 1985 is to more efficiently curb the ever increasing exploitation of our forest wealth by unscrupolous persons in various ways. Machinery of criminal prosecution and forfeiture contained in the Act was found to be ineffective to stop the menace and hence one more separate and independent forum has been provided for and that is of a forest authority which in appropriate cases is empowered to order confiscation of property used in the commission of forest offence. Such officer performs quasi-judicial function. Procedure for enquiry into the relevant facts is contemplated and the order is subjected to revision or appeal. Thus section 61-A takes care of civil liability of the owners of cattle, who generally do not commit such forest offences themselves and employ servants for the same. Servants who are on the spot are caught and the masters can in many cases escape the criminal liability. Section 61-A begins with a non-obstante clause which means it contains additional and independent power of confiscation. Section 61-A refers to the property seized under sub-section (1) of section 52. Servants who are on the spot are caught and the masters can in many cases escape the criminal liability. Section 61-A begins with a non-obstante clause which means it contains additional and independent power of confiscation. Section 61-A refers to the property seized under sub-section (1) of section 52. Damage to forest wealth in any form is covered by section 26 and there is no reason to draw distinction between damage due to theft by carrying the property outside the forest and the damage due to eating or otherwise spoiling by the cattle on the spot itself. After all unauthorisedly grazing the cattle is nothing but theft of the forest produce. 5. In this connection two precedents-though in different context-may be noticed (i) The case of (Emperor v. Mohammad Khan)1, A.I.R. 1938 Nagpur 365, wherein occasion arose to consider whether the cattle instrumental in eating the grass and damaging the property could attract the power of their confiscation contained in section 55 of the Act as it then stood. It was held : "While tools, boats, carts and cattle may be instrumental in cases of theft of forest produce, it cannot be disputed that cattle are also instrumental in the theft of grass which they eat and in the damage to grass and young trees while they cause in grazing: and an offence under section 26(d) is as much an offence as the illicit removal of timber, and, cattle used in committing such an offence are as much liable to confiscation as cattle drawing a cart containing illicitly felled timber." (ii) The case of (State of Maharashtra v. Arun Tabadu Mahajan)2, 1988 (1) Bom.C.R. 603 wherein it was held that cattle used in committing forest offences under section 26(1)(d) is liable to forfeiture under section 55 by the Convicting Court. 6. Undoubtedly section 61-B(2) does not specifically refer to the cattle trespass and refers to the cattle as carrier, but merely from that, a conclusion cannot be drawn that forest offences under section 26(1)(d) and (f) were intended to be kept beyond the reach of confiscatory power under section 61-A. All provision are to be harmoniously construed and no provision can be read in isolation. Added to this is the specific purpose with which change in law is brought about. 7. Added to this is the specific purpose with which change in law is brought about. 7. It is contended that since section 70 specifically deals with the cattle trespass and no charge is brought about in the said provision, it should be held that legislative intent was to exclude the forest offence of cattle trespass from the operation of section 61-A. Answer to this submission will also be the same viz. Section 61-A is additional and independent power. Contrary answer will make the cattle trespass a profitiable business, considering the extent of the fine imposable under section 71 of the Act, and would defeat the purpose of the Act. 8. Our attention was drawn to several decisions relating to the manner of construction of penal statutes in case of doubt. Principle is well settled and it is interpretation beneficial to the subject has to be preferred. We do not have any doubt about the interpretation of section 61-A and, therefore, detailed reference to those cases is unnecessary. 9. Our attention was invited to the case of (Saiyyad Rahim v. Emperor)3, A.I.R. 1915 Nagpur 2, (Fakira Sambhaji Kunbi v. Emperor)4, A.I.R. 1926 Nagpur 73 and (Queen-Empress v. Krishtnayyan)5, I.L.R. XV Madras 156, which deal with a subject of criminal liability of the owner for the acts of servants under the Act. We are not concerned with that aspect of the matter in the instant case. 10. Findings of facts upon which belief about commission of forest offences referred to in section 61-A is based were also challenged before us. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is right when he contends that this is impermissible in writ jurisdiction since there is no preversity in appreciating the evidence. 11. It was also contended that the forest is not reserved. This contention was not raised before the second respondent. Moreover we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the stand of the respondents that compartment No. 345 was a reserved forest. Relying on the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 52 it is contended that the offence in respect of which property is seized is neither notified produce nor the property of the State Government. Apart from the fact that this point is raised for the first time in the course of arguments before us, we are unable to see how that proviso is relevant to the controversy before us. 12. Apart from the fact that this point is raised for the first time in the course of arguments before us, we are unable to see how that proviso is relevant to the controversy before us. 12. Under the circumstances, we see no merit in this petition. It is dismissed and rule discharged. 13. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, interim order of stay granted by this Court shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks to enable the petitioners to move the Supreme Court. Rule discharged. -----