JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J —The petitioner has moved this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting-aside the order of confiscation of his truck No. HIS 1869. 2. The police, police station Dhalli, registered the case vide First Information Report No. 359/91, under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sections 420, 467, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Madan Lal, Sunder Singh and Kamal Chand Sharma on 19-10-1991. His truck bearing registration No. HIS 1869 was also seized by the police on 19-10-1991. When the matter came before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (3), Shimla, on 26-10-1991 for the release of the truck, the Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing in the case, pointed out to the Court the latest amendment to the Indian Forest Act as per Act No i7 of 1991, published in the official Gazette on 9-7-1991. Section 52 (B) whereof provided that the case property, including the truck in question, could not be released by the said Court since the matter as to the release of the truck could be decided only by the Authorised Forest Officer appointed under section 52-A of the Indian Forest (Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1991. Consequently, the application was dismissed on 26-10-1991. 3. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer preferred an application before the Authoriied Forest Officer (Divisional Forest Officer), Shimla, on 2-11-1991. It was pointed out therein that on 19-10-1991 at about 6.10 a m. the truck in question was coming from Old Junga side towards Shimla carrying timber Sunder Lal, driver of the vehicle, produced permit No 5 dated 20-10-1991 and that in the bill 168 items, measuring 99. 24 cft. timber, were shown though on checking. 165 items were found. Out of them, 124 items were bearing mark MSTCJ while the remaining items did not bear any mark. The owner of this timber, who is also the sale-depot holder, namely, Madan Lal, was also following this truck in taxi No. HP-02-0969. The police pointed out that Madan Lal forged the bill in question as of 20-10-4991 in order to take undue advantage inasmuch as that instead of showing the sale of old timber out of his stock, he had shown this date wrongly. The police pointed out that Madan Lal forged the bill in question as of 20-10-4991 in order to take undue advantage inasmuch as that instead of showing the sale of old timber out of his stock, he had shown this date wrongly. The Investigating Officer had requested that until and unless Madan Lal gave the correct details of the timber in question, the truck in question may be allowed to be kept in the custody of the police and should not be released on sapurdari. The Authorised Forest Officer issued notice to the petitioner (Annexure P-l) for showing cause why the said truck should not be confiscated since it had been used in committing a forest offence and was liable to be confiscated under section 52 (a) of the Indian Forest (Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1991. The reply was sought on or before 6-11-1991 and the case was also fixed on this day. The petitioner filed his reply on 6-11-1991 (Annexure P-2). In it, he claims that the case is false and frivolous and that he was innocent. He has also said that the truck should be released to him since he was likely to suffer loss in the sum of Rs. 1,000 per day. He also expressed his willingness to abide by all the conditions those would be imposed for releasing the truck in his favour. It is also stated in this reply that at the relevant time, he was not driving the truck. Moreover, the timber in question had been loaded from a sale depot recognised by the State and having hammer mark. The petitioner was present on 6-11-1991 with his counsel Shri S. C. Sharma The matter was examined and in the penultimate paragraph of this order, the Authorised Forest Officer held that: "After considering the facts that (i) prima facie forest offence has been committed, since the timber was being transported without valid transit pass and (ii) Truck No HiS-1869 was engaged in committing this forest offence, I hereby order the confiscation of Truck No. HIS-1869 as per power delegated to the undersigned vide H. P. Government Notification No. Fts. B (A)-l/91 dated 6-2-1991 and under sub-section (2) of section 52 A of the Indian Forest (Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1991." 4. B (A)-l/91 dated 6-2-1991 and under sub-section (2) of section 52 A of the Indian Forest (Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1991." 4. This order was assailed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge where it was examined again The learned Sessions Judge did not notice any flaw in the order passed by the Authorised Forest Officer and maintained it by decision of November 25, 1991. It is also noticeable from the impugned judgment that the petitioners case was also examined under section 52-A (2) of the Act, but the petitioner could not substantiate it to the satisfaction of the court. The Act provides for revision to any Forest Officer, not below the rank of Conservator of Forests, especially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, by a notification published in the official Gazette, before the expiry of 30 days from the date of the order of the Authorised Forest Officer, under section 52, suo motu under section 59-A, but, it appears, no such power has been exercised in this case either suo motu or at the instance of the petitioner. Section 59-B bars the jurisdiction of any other officer, court, tribunal or authority with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property. It is quoted in extensor: “59-B. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases—Whenever any timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha together with any tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle used in committing any forest offence is seized under section 52, the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of section 52-A or the officer specially empowered under section 59-A or Sessions Judge hearing any appeal under sub-section (2) of section 59 shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, any other officer, Court, Tribunal or authority shall not have jurisdiction to make order with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property." 5. The petitioner contended through his counsel Shri G. D. Verma that this Court may exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set-aside the order of confiscation of his truck No. HIS-1869. The petitioner contended through his counsel Shri G. D. Verma that this Court may exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set-aside the order of confiscation of his truck No. HIS-1869. This plea was vehemently opposed by Shri M. L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the State. His contention was that the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution being extraordinary, is to be exercised very sparingly and only in appropriate cases. It cannot be exercised to correct an error of fact which can be exercised only by a superior court in exercise of its normal statutory power as a court of appeal. This court, according to Shri Chauhan, cannot, in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227, convert Itself info a court of appeal when the Legislature has not conferred such a right on this court. The function of this court is limited to the question whether the subordinate court or tribunal has functioned within the limits of its authority. This court cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it. These contentions of Shri Chauhan are based on AIR 1975 SC 1297, Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another, on which strong reliance was placed, Similar was the contention relating to the application of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and application of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was opposed on the ground that no such power has been conferred on this court by the statute. As a matter of fact, it Is vested with Authorised Officer of the rank described in section 52-A of the Act. For the reasons being recorded hereafter, there is great deal of substance in these submissions raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General. It is not a fit case where this court should exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These are extraordinary powers and have to be exercised in rare cases where the subordinate court or tribunal has out-stepped the limits of its jurisdiction, has occasioned impairable justice to the parties or the action is plainly against the statutory provisions. These are extraordinary powers and have to be exercised in rare cases where the subordinate court or tribunal has out-stepped the limits of its jurisdiction, has occasioned impairable justice to the parties or the action is plainly against the statutory provisions. No revisional power has been conferred on this court by the Legislature, so this court cannot look to section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case. 6. The present amendment "The Indian Forest (Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1991", received the assent of the President of India on 9-7-1991. Through it, certain amendments were made to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Central Act No. 16 of 1927) in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The relevant amendments are being quoted t "52-/4, Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases. (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha, 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, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence before an officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, by notification published in the Official Gazette, not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer). (2) Where an authorised officer seizes under sub-section (1) of section 52 any timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha, which is the property of the State Government, or where any such property is produced before an authorised officer under sub-section (1), once 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 offence, order confiscation of the property so seized together with all tools, ropes chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence. (3) (a) Where the authorised officer, after passing an order of confiscation under sub-section (2), is of the opinion that it is ex pedient in the public interest so to do, he may order confiscated property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction. (3) (a) Where the authorised officer, after passing an order of confiscation under sub-section (2), is of the opinion that it is ex pedient in the public interest so to do, he may order confiscated property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction. (b) Where any confiscated property is 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 section 52-A is set aside or annuled by an order under section 59 or section 59-A, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it was seized as may be specified in such order." "52-B, Issue of show cause notice before confiscation under section 52-4.—(1) No order confiscating any timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha, ropes chains, boats or vehicles shall be made under section 52-A except after notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized and considering his objections, if any: Provided that no order confiscating a motor vehicle shall be made except, after giving notice in writing to the registered owner thereof, if 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, rope, chain, boat or vehicle shall be made under section 52-A If the owner of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying the timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any and the person-in-charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle and that each of them had taken ail reasonable and necessary precaution against such use." "59 (2) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under section 52-A or section 59-A may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which the order relates has been seized and the Sessions Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant and the authorized officer or the officer specially empowered under section 59-A, as the case may be, to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit confirming, modifying or annuling the order appealed against. (3) The order of the Sessions Judge under sub-section (2) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law." "59-A. Revision.—Any forest officer not below the rank of Conservator of Forests, specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf by notification published in the official Gazette, may, before the expiry of thirty days from the date of order of the authorised officer under section 52-A. suo motu call for and examine the records that order and may make such enquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and may pass such orders as he deems fit s Provided that no order prejudicial to a person shall be passed under this section without giving him an opportunity of being heard. 59-B. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.—Whenever any timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha together with any tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle used in committing any forest offence is seized under section 52, the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of section 52-A or the officer specially empowered under section 59-A or Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under sub-section (2) of section 59 shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, any other officer, Court, Tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make order with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property." "60. When an order for the confiscation of any property has been passed under section 52-A or section 55 or section 57, as the case may be, or where on revision application made under section 59-A such order for confiscation has not been set aside, and the period limited by section 59 for an appeal from such order has elapsed, and no such appeal has been preferred or when, on such an appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court confirms such orders in respect of the property or a portion of such property, such property or such portion thereof, or if it ha., been sold under sub-section (3) of section 52-A, the sale proceeds thereof, as the case may be, shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances/ 7. The provisions quoted above plainly demonstrate that where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber (excluding fuel wood), resin, khair wood and katha, which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (I) of section 2 shall, without any unreasonable delay, produce the same alongwith all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence before an officer, not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests, notified by the State Government in the official Gazette, who, on being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of such property, order confiscation of the same together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles, used in committing such offence. Before ordering confiscation, notice in writing is required to be given to the person from whom the property or the vehicle was seized The owner of any tool, rope, chain, boats or vehicle is at liberty to satisfy the authorised officer that it was used for carrying the timber (excluding the fuel wood) resin, khair wood and katha without his or his agents knowledge or connivance or the person in-charge of the vehicle and they had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The petitioner has not taken any such defence in his reply to the show-cause notice and he cannot take up this plea for the first time in this Court, that too, in the absence of any tangible evidence to support it. 8. The remedy available to the petitioner under section 59 stands exhausted The learned Sessions Judge has also examined the matter quite exhaustively and meticulously before rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Revisional powers under section 59-A have not been exercised either suo motu by the authority concerned nor the petitioner sought to invoke the same. Under section 59-B, the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the seizure and release of the vehicle has been conferred on the authorised officer or the Sessions Judge notwithstanding any other act or the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the contrary. At this stage, it is important to refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in K, P. Francis v. State by Inspector of Police. At this stage, it is important to refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in K, P. Francis v. State by Inspector of Police. 1992 (?) Crimes 56, where Pratap Singh, J., dealt with a similar provision contained in section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1974 which places embargo on the Courts to pass any order for the release of the vehicle covered by this section since the jurisdiction was conferred oa the Collector or the State Government, as the case may be It is relevant to quote section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1974 It says s “6-E. Whenever any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under section 6-A, the Collector, or, as the case may be, the State Government concerned under section 6-C shall have, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance." 9. For rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the light of this provision, the learned Judge appropriately placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal, 1990 SCC 489, wherein the Supreme Court had said that : "It is obvious on a plain reading of this provision that the same was brought on the statute book with a view to debarring the courts from making any order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of any essential commodity seized under an order made under section 3 of the Act." Then again, in para 6, the Apex Court has observed as follows: “By the substituted section 6-E as it presently stands the scope of the provision has been enlarged by extending the bar of jurisdiction of the Court, Tribunal or other authority to the release, etc, of packages, coverings or receptacles as well as animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyance also. It provides that whenever any essential commodity is seized under m order made in exercise of power conferred by section 3 in relation thereto, no Court, Tribunal or other authority shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity save and except the Collector pending confiscation under section 6-A of the State Government concerned under section 6-G." 10. It can, therefore, be said that In view of the statutory provisions referred to above, the jurisdiction ander the Act is now vested with the authorised officer, the Sessions Judge or the revising authority, as the case maybe. Of course, the jurisdiction of this Court has not been barred, if invoked appropriately and a case is made out therefor. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not been persuaded to take a view other than the one already taken by the learned Sessions Judge in this case. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly rejected. Petition dismissed.