Judgment R.N.SAHAY, J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks an appropriate writ to quash the order, dated 30-12-1992 contained in Annexure-5 by which the Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla, Respondent No. 2 has confirmed his earlier order regarding confiscation of truck and the timber belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier moved Cr. W. J. C. No. 307 of 1892 (R) which application was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to move the Divisional Forest Officer, (Appellate Authority) in this matter. By the impugned order the Divisional Forest Officer has held that since the petitioner was transporting timber without transit permit the timber was liable to be confiscated under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar Amendment 1989. The petitioner had purchased timber from Adivasi Saw Mills, Bano, Gumla on 29-3-1991 and he was granted challan as well as the bill for the said purchase (Annexure 1 and 1/A), the Adivasi Saw Mills had valid licence to sell timber under rules framed under Sections 41, 42 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act. The truck and the timber of the petitioner was seized by the Forestor on 29-3-1991 as it was suspected that the petitioner had committed offence under the Indian Forest Act and an information was given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla on 1-4- 1991. It appears that the notice of confiscation proceeding in respect of the truck was issued to one Rakesh Kumar. No proceeding was drawn up in respect of the timber. However, by the order contained in Annexure 3, Respondent No. 2 has also ordered! confiscation of the timber. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 provides : "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, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other articles used committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer." 2. Section 2 (2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read as : "Forest Officer" means any person whom the State Government or any officer empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may appoint to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act or to do anything required by this Act or any rule made there under to be done by a Forest Officer." 3. Section 52-D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 enacted by Bihar Act 9/90 privides as follows : "Power of entry, inspection, search and seizureNotwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Officer of Forest or any Police Officer and not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector may, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that any forest offence has been committed in contravention of this Act enter upon, inspect and search any place, premises, appurtences thereto, land vehicle or boat and seized any illegal forest produce and all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other articles used in committing such offence." 4. Section 52 of the said Act will be applicable only if seizure is made in respect of any forest produce where as Section 52-D of the said Act empowers any Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Officer of Forest or any PoliceOfficer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to seize any as article if he has reasonable grounds to believe that any forest offence has been committed under Indian Forest Act. In the instant case the seizure was made by the Forestor who is below rank of Range Officer, the seizure was invalid since Section 52 was not applicable and only Section 52-D was applicable. 5. The contention of Shri A. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner that no transit permit was required for the movement of timber since it was purchased from an authorised Saw Mills is devoid of any merit. 6. Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate transit of timber and others forest produce and in exercise of power vested by Section 41, the State Government has framed transit rules for movement of timber. 7. 6. Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate transit of timber and others forest produce and in exercise of power vested by Section 41, the State Government has framed transit rules for movement of timber. 7. The contention that since the timber was not forest produce no transit permit was necessary has been negatived by Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Kasi Prasad Sahu v. State of Orissa, AIR 1963 (OTissa) 24, where R. L. Narashimham, C. J. has discused the question at length. Citing relevant provision of the Forest Act and the rule framed thereunder, it was pointed out by the learned Chief Justice that on an interpretation of the expression "Forest Produce" as used in thp Indian Forest Act, there was an implied power in the Government to regulate the transit of timber even if it, may not be the property of Government. The Forest Act gives power to the State Government to make rules regulating the transit, of all timber in such terms as enables the Government to prescribe that even private timber, other than forest timber, could be carried or transported within a certain area only with a transit permit. The decision of the High Court has been followed by Gauhati High Court in State of Tripura and Sashimohal Malakar and others, 1977 Cr LJ 1663. 8. The Bihar CastChiran (Biniaman) Adhiniyam, 1990 has no relevance and does not have the effect of modifying the transit rules. 9. In the result we hold that the seizure of timber was without jurisdiction although the petitioner had violated the provision of transit rules by not obtaining transit permit. The seizure of timber is, therefore, quashed and consequently Respondent No. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla, is hereby directed to release the timber to the petitioner forthwith. This order, however, will not preclude any Forest Officer to seize the timber in accordance with law. The order of Respondent No. 2 contained in Annexure-5 is quashed.