Judgment A.N.Chaturvedi, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing the order of confiscation (Annexure-4), passed by respondent No. 2, the Divisional Forest Officer and for release of their vehicle bearing No. U. P. F. 7233. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioners are the owners of truck No. U. P. F. 7233 which is a public carrier. The said truck was seized on 5-2-1993 at about 5 p.m. at Danapur. Twenty one bags of Katha Biscuits weighing 445 Kgn. were recovered from the said truck. Thereafter the Katha biscuits as well as the truck were seized. Prosecution report was sent to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, for prosecution of the petitioners. Respondent No. 2, the Divisional Forest Officer of South Forest Division, Chatra, directed the petitioners to show course as to why the truck be not confiscated under Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forest Act). In response to the show-cause notice the petitioners appeared before the Respondent No. 2 and filed their show cause and respondent No. 2 as per his order dated 19-1-1992 as contained in Annexure-4 confiscated the truck of the petitioners. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, a division Bench of this Court as per order dated 21-5-1993 directed the release of the truck and in pursuance thereof the truck of the petitioners is said to have been released. So the matter concerning confiscation only is now to be considered. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the order of confiscation primarily on the ground that the provisions of Indian Forest Act have no application to the transaction of Katha biscuits which is "Specified Forest Produce", in view of Section 32 of Bihar Fores Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 and since there is provision for canfiscation of a vehicle by the court under Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 and not by Divisional Forest Officer and, therefore, the order of confiscation dated 19-1-1992 passed by the respondent No. 2 on the face of it is without jurisdiction and is fit to be quashed. 5. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 32 of Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 bars application of the provisions of Indian Forest Act to specified forest produce only in respect of matters for which provisions are contained in Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 it was further contended that the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 does not contain any provision for confiscation of specified Forest Produce and vehicle by the Divisional Forest Officer and hence the provision of Indian Forest Act in this regard as contained in Section 52(3) of the Act will apply. 6. For proper appreciation of rival contentions raised on behalf of the contesting parties, it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of the legislations in this regard. "Forest" is concern the subjects being entry No. 17-A in the concurrent list under the Vllth Schedule to the Constitution. The Indian Forest Act is a pre-existing Central Act, which was enacted to consolidate the law relation to forest, the transit of Forest Produce Act. "Forest Produce" has been defined in Section 2(1) of the Indian Forest Act which is as under : (4) "Forest Produce" includes. (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say : timber, charcoal, caouchouc, catechu, wood oil resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds (kuth) and myra bolams and (b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest that is to say : (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned of trees, (ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), all parts or produce of such plants, (iii) wiid animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax and all other parts or produce of animals, and, (iv) peat, surface soil, rock, and minerals (including limestone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries); 7. From Clause (a) of Section-2 (4) as quoted above, it is clear that Forest produce includes Katha (catechu) found in or brought from a Forest cr not. From Clause (a) of Section-2 (4) as quoted above, it is clear that Forest produce includes Katha (catechu) found in or brought from a Forest cr not. The Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 has been enacted by the State Legislature in order to made provision for regulating the trade and other related matters of certain forest produce as specified in the schedule thereof by creation of a State monopoly in such trade in the State of Bihar. Section 2 (1) of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 has defined "Forest Produce" as follows : "Forest Produce". Means any forest product as specified in the schedule (hereinafter called the specified forest produce). 8. Section 5 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 places restriction on purchase or transport of specified "Forest Produce" which lay6 down as under : Restriction on purchase or transport or specified forest produce.(i) On the issue of a notification under sub sections (3) and (4) of Section 1 with respect to any area, no person other than (i) The Government ; (ii) An Officer of the Government authorised in writing in this behalf ; (iii) An agent in respect of the unit in which the specified forest produce is grown or found ; shall purchase or transport or import or export such specified forest produce in and from such area. Explanation I.Purchase of specified forest produce from the State Government or the aforesaid Government Officer or agent or a licensed vendor shall not be deemed to be a purchase in contravention of this Act. Explanation II.A person having no interest in the holding who has acquired the right to collect the specified forest produce grown or found on laid shall be deemed to have purchased such produce in contravention of tho provisions of this Act. Explanation II.A person having no interest in the holding who has acquired the right to collect the specified forest produce grown or found on laid shall be deemed to have purchased such produce in contravention of tho provisions of this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) : (i) a primary collector of a specified forest produce may transport this specified forest produce from any place within the unit wherein such specified forest produce is grown or is found to any other place in that unit ; (ii) any person may transport the specified forest produce not exceeding the quantity as may be prescribed, from the place of purchase of such produce to the place whole such produce is required for his bona fide use or for consumption ; (iii) specified forest produce purchased from the Government or any officer or Agent specified in the said sub-section by any person for industrial purposes or manufacture of goods within the State in which such specified forest produce is used, as raw material or by person for sale or consumption outside the State or for import in the State or transport through this State or by the licenced vendor may be transported by such person in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued in that behalf by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed ; and (v) any person having the right in any forest in respect of any specified forest produce under any law for the time being in force, may transport such produce for his domestic use or consumption in such quantity and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. (3) Any person desiring to sell the specified forest produce may sell them to the aforesaid Government Officer or Agent at any depot situated within the said unit : Provided that the Government, the Government Officer, or Agent shall not be bound to repurchase the specified produce once sold. 9. (3) Any person desiring to sell the specified forest produce may sell them to the aforesaid Government Officer or Agent at any depot situated within the said unit : Provided that the Government, the Government Officer, or Agent shall not be bound to repurchase the specified produce once sold. 9. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that from the date of commencement of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation or Trade) Act, 1984 no person other than (1) Government (2) An Officer of the Government authorised in writing in this behalf and (3) An agent in respect of the unit in which the specified forest produce is grown or found shall purchase or transport or import or export such "Specified Forest Produce" in and from such area. Explanatiqn to Section 5 of the Bihar Forest (Regulation of Trade), Act, 1984 provides that a person having no interest in the holding who has acquired a right to collect the specified forest produce grown or found on land shall be deemed to have purchased such produce in contravention of the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 has been enacted to provide complete control on transaction of specified forest produce. Section 32 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 provides that nothing contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 shall apply to specified forest produce in respect of matters for which provisions are contained in that Act. Therefore, apart from the constitutional mandate under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, in view of Section 32 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 the general provisions prescribed under the Indian Forest Act for regulating the trade and other related matters of Forest produce will not apply to the specified forest produce. For ascertaining any contravention in respect of transaction in specified ferest produce, one has to refer to the Bihar Forest produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 and if any, violation is found then the offence will be under the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 and not under the Indian Forest Act. 10. In the instant case the Divisional Forest Officer (Respondent No. 2) has passed the impugned order of confiscation purporting to exercise his powers under Sec. 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act as amended and substituted by the Bihar Amending Act. 10. In the instant case the Divisional Forest Officer (Respondent No. 2) has passed the impugned order of confiscation purporting to exercise his powers under Sec. 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act as amended and substituted by the Bihar Amending Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the Forest Act as substituted by Bihar Amendment Act reads as follows : Subject to sub-section (5) where the authorised officer upon production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report abou t seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded, confiscate forest produce so seized together with all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence. The Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence concerned may, on the basis of the report of the authorised confiscating officer, cancel the registration of a vehicle used in committing the offence, the licence of the vehicle-driver and the licence of the Arms. A copy of order on confiscation shall be forwarded without undue delay, to the conservators of Forests of the forest circle in which the forest produce, as the case may be, has been seized. 11. A reading of sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the Forest Act shows that the Forest Officer can pass an order for confiscation in respect of forest produce and the vehicle if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of the forest produce. "Forest Offence" has been defined under Clause 3 of Section 2 of the Indian Forest Act to mean an offence punishable under the Act or under any rule made thereunder. It has already been pointed out above that any violation in respect of the transaction of specified forest produce can amount to offence only under the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 and, therefore in respect of Katha buscuits (Catechu) which is specified forest produce, there cannot be a forest offence within the meaning of the Forest Act so as to confer any jurisdiction on an Officer authorised under the Forest Act to confiscate either the specified forest produce or any article or vehicle connected therewith. 12. 12. Now it has to be seen as to whether the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 has made any provision for confiscation of a vehicle or not. For ascertaining this aspect of the matter one has to look to Sections 15,19,20 of this Act which are quoted hereunder below : 15. Power to entry, search, seizure etc. (1) Any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Officer of Forest or Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, or any other person authori sed by the Government in this behalf may with a view to securi ng compliance with the provision of this Act or the rule made thereunder or to satisfying himself that the said provisions have been complied with : (i) stop and search any person, boat, vehicle or receptacle used or intended to be used for the transport of specified forest produce; (ii) enter and search any place ; (iii) seize the specified forest produce in respect of which he suspects that any provision of this act or the rules made thereunder has been, is being or is about to be contravened along with the receptacles containing such produce and all tool ropes, chains boats or/and vehicles used in committing any such offence. (2) The provisions of Sections 102 and 103, of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall so far as may be, apply to searches and seizure under this section. (3) Every Officer seizing specified forest produce and other property under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) above shall place on such produce if physically possible, a property mark indicating that the same has been seized and shall, except when the offender agrees in writing forthwith to get the offence componded in the manner prescribed make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate. (4) Any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Officer of Forest who or whose subordinate has seized any property other than the specified forest produce under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required before the Magistrate. 19. Power to hold enquiry. 19. Power to hold enquiry. (1) Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Officer of Forest, or such other Officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf, may hold enquiry into the offices relating to any contraveation of any provision of this Act and the Rules made thereunder and the course of such enquiry he shall have : (i) power of Civil Court to compel the attendance of witnesses and production of documents and material objects ; (ii) power to issue a search warrant under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974) and (iii) Power to receive and record evidence. (2) Any evidence recorded under Clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be admissible in any subsequent trial before a Magistrate. 20. Penalty.-- (1) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or rule6 thereunder : (i) He shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or both : Provided that penalties which are double of those mentioned above may be inflicted in case where the offence is committed after preperation for resistance to lawful authority or where the offender has been previously convicted of a like offence ; (2) the specified forest produce in respect of which such contravention has been made or such part thereof, as the Court may deem fit, any boat, tools vehicle, animal, vessel or other conveyance or any other articles used in committing such offence shall be forfeited to Government and shall vest in Government free from all encumbrances : Provided that if the Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to direct confiscation in respect of whole or as the case may be, any part of the specified forest produce or other property, it may, for reasons to be recorded refrain from doing so. (3) such forfeiture may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence. 13. It is apperent that if any violation of the provision of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 is suspected then the authorities have been empowered to seize the specified forest produce as will as the receptacles containing such specified produce and the vehicles used for carrying the same or committing any such offence. 13. It is apperent that if any violation of the provision of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 is suspected then the authorities have been empowered to seize the specified forest produce as will as the receptacles containing such specified produce and the vehicles used for carrying the same or committing any such offence. Section 20 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984, which is the penalty section, provides forfeiture of specified forest produce in respect of which contravention of the provisions of the said Act or rules made thereunder has been made. It also provides for forfeiture of vehicle by couts used in committing such contravention/offence. So the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 has made provision for forfeiture/confiscation. That being so and in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, there is no question of confiscation of the vehicles under the provisions of Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act by the Divisional Forest Officer (Respondent No. 2). Therefore, the impugned order concerning confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioners as contained in Annexure-4 is wholly without jurisdiction. 14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act provides for appeal against the order of confiscation and hence the petitioners should challenge the impugned order of confiscation before the appellate authority. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to paragraph-24 of the writ petition and pointed out that the petitioners have preferred appeal before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority has no power to decide the question of jurisdiction and under the circumstances the petitioners had no option but to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned order which is without jurisdiction. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced photo copy of the order dated 17-9-1992 passed in Cr. W. J. C. No. 314 of 1992 (R) for the purpose of showing that this Court refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction for the release of the seized goods. (Kusum Seeds). The learned counsel for the respondents has also produced photo copy of order dated 28-8-1992 passed in Cr. W. J. C. No. 286 of 1992 (R) which shows that a Division Bench of this Court direct release of the vehicle subject to confiscation proceeding. (Kusum Seeds). The learned counsel for the respondents has also produced photo copy of order dated 28-8-1992 passed in Cr. W. J. C. No. 286 of 1992 (R) which shows that a Division Bench of this Court direct release of the vehicle subject to confiscation proceeding. It may be pointed out that there is no affidavit with regard to the correctness of the contents of the photo copies of the said orders. Apart from that, it was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said orders in the said criminal writs were passed at the admission stage without going into the merits of the submissions and apart from that the matter was for release of the seized goods/vehicle and not regarding quashing of the order of confiscation. It was also rightly pointed out that the point concerning confiscation was not pressed for decision on merit in those two writ petitions and hence the said orders in the said criminal writs are of a little help to the respondents. 16. In view of what has been pointed out above the impugned order of confiscation dated 19-1-1992 (Annexure-4) is held to be wholly without jurisdiction and accordingly it is hereby quashed. It is however clarified that I have not applied myself to the facts of the case in order of find out whether the petitioners have committed any offence or not and it will be the subject matter of trial before the court of competent jurisdiction. The quashing of the order of confiscation will not be a defence perse in the criminal proceeding relating to the transaction in question. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.