K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition raises three important questions centering around the interpretation of Section 61-B and Section 61-D of the Indian Forest (Gujarat Amendment) act, 1963 (for short "the Forest Act") for our consideration. They are :-FIRSTLY, Whether irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case, no order confiscating any offending vehicle under Section 61-A of the Forest Act, can ever be passed save and except after giving notice in writing to its registered owner as envisaged in proviso to Section 61-B (1) of the Forest Act ?secondly, whether any third person claiming himself to be a registered owner not a party to the initial proceedings before the authorities constituted under the Forest act by whom the truck in question ultimately came to be confiscated under section 61-A of the Act, stricto sensu can be said to be an "aggrieved party" deriving any right under Section 61-D of the Act to appeal to the Sessions Court to challenge the impugned order of confiscation ?thirdly, if indeed it is ultimately concluded that such a third person at this stage of proceedings cannot be said to be an "aggrieved person" under the Forest act, and accordingly having no locus standi under Section 61-D of the Forest act to prefer an appeal before the sessions Court, then what indeed is his right and remedy to redress his alleged grievance in the matter of confiscated truck and get justice ?" ( 2 ) TO briefly narrate few relevant facts of the case giving rise to the aforesaid three questions, accordingly to the petitioner-Chandubhai Motibhai Patel, he is the registered owner of the truck bearing No. GRQ-6675 which under the agreement was handed over to one Mr. S. M. Gandhi of Navsari, respondent No. 3 herein for carting bricks and sand. It further appears that in the early hours of 19-2-1985, when the mobile squad of the range Forest Officers were on a patrol duty on Rajpipla-Baroda Highway, near umawadi, the truck bearing No. GRQ- 6675 was found coming and was signalled to stop, however defying the same on its trying to speed away, the same was chased and ultimately intercepted and on checking the same, it was found being driven by Gulam mohammed Yusuf of Navsari wherein chiman V. Chauhan of Ummallah (Jhagadia) was the cleaner. On taking search of the said truck 73 pieces of the teak timber illicitly cut from the reserve forest area were found being illegally transported and for which neither the driver nor the cleaner had any pass or permit. On making further inquiry as to who was the owner of the said truck, both the driver and the cleaner gave the name of Mr. S. M. Gandhi as the owner of the said truck. Not only this but thereafter both the driver and the cleaner made clean breast of everything by confessing further that the truck in question was engaged at village Ummallah for illegally transporting the pieces of teak timber from Zaire Forest area. Thereafter, both the muddamal pieces of teak wood and the truck in question were seized under the Panchnama. On the basis of these facts, ultimately when the proceedings started before the Forest officer, on Mr. S. M. Gandhi the owner of the offending truck in question furnishing a bond and surety to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh and on certain other condition as directed by the High Court, the truck was released. Thereafter, at the end of the inquiry, the offending truck came to be confiscated by an order dated 29-8-1986 passed by the Deputy conservator of Forest, Rajpipla (East ). This order ultimately came to- be challenged quite surprisingly not by Mr. S. M. Gandhi (who all throughtout claimed the truck as that of his ownership, and accordingly furnished the bond and sureties, etc. etc. ,) but by the petitioner herein (third person not a party to the proceedings before the Deputy conservator of Forest) claiming himself to be the registered Owner of the truck in question by filing Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1986 in the Sessions Court at bharuch. This came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 20-6-1987 giving rise to the present Special criminal Application. This came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 20-6-1987 giving rise to the present Special criminal Application. ( 3 ) SHRI H. M. Parikh, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order of confiscation has vehemently contended that the petitioner being the registered ownerof the offending truck in question which came to be confiscated under section 61-Aof the Forest Act, the Forest authorities having regard to the provisions contained in Section 61-B and in particular the proviso to the said section had indeed no power to order confiscation without giving prior notice in writing to the said petitioner. In other words, according to Mr. Parikh, since the truck in question was the property of the petitioner, the same could not and accordingly, should not have been confiscated at his back without giving him fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard as warranted by Section 61-B of the Forest Act, more particularly its proviso ! In substance, according to Mr. Parikh, since the mandatory provision of section 61-B of the Act on face of it stood violated, the impugned order of confiscation at once deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter accordingly be remanded to the competent authority directing him to decide the same on merits after giving full and fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Mr. Parikh in the alternative further submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in absence of there being anything on the record to show that either the truck in question or for that purpose mr. S. M. Gandhi or even the petitioner, were in any way previously involved in any illegal transportation of the forest goods, the impugned order confiscating the truck straighaway being quite harsh, excessive and unjust, and therefore, the same may be suitably modified by releasing the truck and in its place, imposing reasonable amount of fine. ( 4 ) AS against the above, Mr. P. S. Champaneri, the learned APP appearing for the respondents submitted that taking into consideration certain undisputed facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party, merely because he claims to be the registered owner of the truck in question ! ( 4 ) AS against the above, Mr. P. S. Champaneri, the learned APP appearing for the respondents submitted that taking into consideration certain undisputed facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party, merely because he claims to be the registered owner of the truck in question ! The learned APP further submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the authorized officer and accordingly he being a third party, he cannot be said to have any locus standi under the Forest act to prefer an appeal under Section 61 - d of the said Act against the impugned order of confiscation passed under section 61-A of the said Act. On the basis of these submissions, the learned APP finally urged that since the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court was just, legal and proper, no case was made out by the petitioner to interfere with the same, and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 5 ) NOW having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties quite at length, at the very outset, this Court has indeed no hesitation in declaring that in the first instance, there is nothing on the basis of which the petitioner can be said to be an "aggrieved person" under the Act, simply and merely because he claims to be the registerted owner of the truck in question, and in the second instance, as outcome of the first cannot be permitted to be assail the impugned order to grant relief of possession of the truck in question as prayed for. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the aforesaid legal controversy between the parties, it is necessary first of all to have a brief look at the relevant provisions of Sections 61- a, 61-B and 61-D of the Act which stands reproduced as under :-6. 1. Section 61-A pertains to the confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases. Now since provision contained in this Section is no more in challenge, it is not necessary to reproduce the same in extenso here. 6. 2. Section 61-B relates to issuance of show-cause notice before confiscation under Section 61-A (1 ). The said Section 61-B reads as under:- "61b. Section 61-A pertains to the confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases. Now since provision contained in this Section is no more in challenge, it is not necessary to reproduce the same in extenso here. 6. 2. Section 61-B relates to issuance of show-cause notice before confiscation under Section 61-A (1 ). The said Section 61-B reads as under:- "61b. Issuance of show cause notice before confiscation under Section 61- a (1) - No order confiscating any forest produce or tools, rope, chains, boats vehicles or cattle shall be made under section 61-A except after notice in writing to the person whom it is seized informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate it and considering his objection, if any : provided that no order confiscating a motor vehicle shall be made except after giving in writing to the registered owner thereof, if in the opinion of the authorized 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, vehicle or cattle shall be made under Section 61-A if the owner of the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying forest produce without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the tool, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use. 6. 3. Section 61d - Appeal - (1) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under Section 61a or Section 61c may, within thirdly 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 of being heard to the appellant and the authorized officer or the officer specially empowered under section 61c, as the case may be, pass such order as he may think fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. (2) An order of the Sessions Judge under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law. (2) An order of the Sessions Judge under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law. ( 7 ) NOW bearing in mind the aforesaid three legal provisions, let us now further look at some of the following few relevant, glaring and indisputable facts and circumstances of the case having a direct bearing on the point involved and accordingly, equally necessary to be appreciated in order to set at rest the legal controversy between the parties. (I) That when the offending truck in question came to be seized alongwith the muddamal pieces of teak wood by the range Forest Officer, both the driver and cleaner in unequivocal terms gave the name of Mr. S. M. Gandhi of Navsari as the owner of the truck. (II) Thereafter on the basis of statement recorded, Deputy Conservator of Forest, rajpipla issued a show-cause notice dated 2-3-1985 under Section 61-B of the Act to Mr. S. M. Gandhi wherein he in his written reply dated 11-3-1985 specifically asserted and admitted that he was the owner of the truck in question claiming back the possession relying upon the sale deed executed by the petitioner in the year 1982 ! (III) That thereafter, Mr. S. M. Gandhi filed a Special Civil Application No. 1013 of 1985 before this Court challenging the vires of the Indian Forest (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1963, inter alia praying for the release of the truck in question in his favour wherein this Court [coram : B. K. Mehta, Actg. C. J. and G. T. Nanavati, J. ] on the petitioner withdrawing the petition passed the following order on 12-3-1985 :"mr. Hava appears for the authorities of the State Government. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner who agrees that the petitioner will participate in the adjudication proceeding and whatever order that may be ultimately made will be binding to both the parties subject to his right to challenge the same by appropriate proceedings. In the meantime, we direct that respondent No. 2 will hand over the custody of the truck bearing Registration no. GRQ 6615 on the petitioner executing a personal bond in the sum of rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount or two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfication of respondent no. In the meantime, we direct that respondent No. 2 will hand over the custody of the truck bearing Registration no. GRQ 6615 on the petitioner executing a personal bond in the sum of rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount or two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfication of respondent no. 2 and on his further giving an undertaking to this Court to the effect: (a) That he will not transfer or part with the possession of the truck in question in any manner to any one. (b) That he will maintain the truck in workable condition till the final order is ultimately passed. (c) That he will attend the confiscation proceedings before the Competent authority as and when called for and cooperate with him so as to enable him to finally dispose of the proceedings at the earliest. (d) That he will produce the truck before the respondent authorities whenever called for inspection. (e) That he will surrender the truck in question in workable condition within 60 days from the date of the order of the competent authority, unless he procures some order from the Court or the higher authorities. A copy of the undertaking to be filed in this Court be furnished to the respondents. Pursuant to this direction, on 16-4-1985, Mr. Gandhi filed an undertaking before this Court on the lines suggested above, further stating therein that the truck bearing Registration No. GRQ-6615 is standing in his name and that he shall execute a personal bond of rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) with one surety of the like amount or two sureties of Rs. 50. 000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each to the satisfaction of the Deputy forest Officer, etc. The petitioner also further undertook not only to produce the truck before the Forest Authority whenever called for the Inspection but also to surrender the truck within sixty days from the date of order of the competent authority unless he procures some order from the Court, etc. (IV) That it also appears from the record that one Sale Deed came to be executed by the petitioner herein in favour of Mr. S. M. Gandhi in the presence of witness Thakorbhai maganbhai and Yusufbhai of Rajpipla wherein it is specifically agreed upon that he has sold the truck in question for Rs. 1,36,000/- to Mr. S. M. Gandhi and that the said Mr. S. M. Gandhi in the presence of witness Thakorbhai maganbhai and Yusufbhai of Rajpipla wherein it is specifically agreed upon that he has sold the truck in question for Rs. 1,36,000/- to Mr. S. M. Gandhi and that the said Mr. S. M. Gandhi in turn has become the absolute owner of the truck in question with effect from 23-8-1982. Not only that but it is further stated in the Sale deed that from 23-8-1982 onwards, the truck being in possession of Mr. S. M. Gandhi, he was responsible for all the road taxes, diesel, spare parts, accessories, etc. In other words, the entire responsibility of the offending truck in question stood transferred to Mr, S. M. Gandhi as the owner right from 23-8- 1982, that is to say three years prior to the alleged offence, which took place on 19- 2-1985. It is also specifically mentioned in the Sale Deed that the truck in question was sold on 23-8-1982 and possession thereof was handed over to him with full responsibility, etc. etc. (V) That it is not disputed that when after the driver and the cleaner named mr. S. M. Gandhi as the owner of the truck in question, no notice in writing was given to him before passing the order of confiscation. (VI) That the truck in question was intercepted and seized on 19-2-1985 and ultimately the order confiscating the same was passed on 29-8-1986. (During this period of 18 months, it is indeed quite surprising that at no point of time, the petitioner appeared before the Forest authorities to claim the truck as a "registered owner". This is simply unbelievable !!1995 (2) Chandubhai M. Patel v. Deputy Cons ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid eloquent facts and circumstances of the case, when mr. S. M. Gandhi consistently represented himself to be the owner of the truck in question quite apparently on the basis of the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner in the year 1982 inasmuch as he also gave the undertaking before the high Court binding himself down to the several terms and conditions more particularly conditions (d) and (c) above, and thereupon if the District Forest authorities passed the order of confiscating the truck, after duly serving the notice in writing and hearing Mr. S. M. Gandhi, it is indeed stretching too much or so to say spinning too thin and too literal in obstinately harping upon one point, viz. that as the petitioner and not mr. S. M. Gandhi was the registered owner of the truck in question, the notice as required under the proviso to Section 61-B should have been issued to the petitioner and that the service of the same on Mr. S. M. Gandhi was of no consequence ! Under the circumstances, if indeed and at all the petitioner had a feeling of being duped, and wronged ultimately as a result of an order of confiscation, that by itself is a distinct and separate issue the impugned order of confiscation can neither be questioned nor challenged. In fact, the word registered owner appearing in the proviso to Section 61-B (1) of the Act is required to be appreciated in its proper perspective. The obvious intention of the legislature in insisting upon the issuance of the notice to the registered owner of the truck was that the offending vehicle was not confiscated to the prejudice of such registered owner without giving prior notice to him. Now it is indeed quite true that Section 61-B does refer to the registered owner as a person who must be given prior notice in writing before any order is passed under Section 61-A confiscating the vehicle in question involved in forest offence under the Act. However, this phrase is required to be appreciated and understood little pragmatically in context of facts and circumstances attending to the case. The object underlying Section 61-B to issue notice in writing to the registered owner before confiscating the vehicle in the first instance is to give him an opportunity to satisfy the authorities that the same was involved in carrying forest produce without his knowledge or connivance, and in the second instance, to protect him from penalty of confiscating his vehicle arbitrarily at his back when some third person keeping him in dark committed some forest offences using the vehicle in question. Ordinarily, unless the facts and circumstances of the case indicate to the contrary, the issue of ownership of vehicle is determined prima facie on the basis of the registered ownership. Ordinarily, unless the facts and circumstances of the case indicate to the contrary, the issue of ownership of vehicle is determined prima facie on the basis of the registered ownership. Accordingly legislature has rightly employed, used the phrase "registered owner" in Section 61-B, but when question arises as to determine the ownership of the truck in question in context of the confiscation, bearing in mind the ultimate and overall object one has to also find out who is the person ultimately accontable for penalty. If the facts and circumstances supported by some documents indicate that the person claiming as an owner and not as the registered owner of the truck in question, is the real person practicable to serve notice under Section 61-B of the forest Act, then service of notice on such person in place of the registered owner is a sufficient compliance of Section 61-B of the Forest Act. In fact, when the Court is called upon to interpret any provision of law, the first thing to be found out is for what purpose the Act in question stands for and further still what could be the intention of the Legislature in enacting particular provision!! Thereafter, the Court is also further required to dwelve upon the point as to which way things are required to be interpreted. That is to say the way which promotes mischief and defeats the object of the Act, or the way which subserves the overall social interest ! It is here perhaps where the test of judicial wisdom and pragmatism is put to the real test ! Here indeed is the cross-road where by technical, literal approach court may misdirect itself and wander away from the path of substantial social justice, and as against that by pragmatic appraoch reaches the real goal and destination of social justice ! In fact, these are the first and foremost thing which are required to be inquired about and found out by the court when called upon to interpret any provision of law. In fact, these are the first and foremost thing which are required to be inquired about and found out by the court when called upon to interpret any provision of law. Accordingly, while examining Section 61-B of the Forest act, it appears that the obvious intention of the Legislature in insisting upon the issuance of the notice to the registered owner of the truck was that the truck in question should not be confiscated to his prejudice without giving him due notice in writing and rightly so because in a given case, the owner of the truck honestly might be knowing nothing about the clandestine manner in which the alleged forest offence in which his truck was involved took place as many a times happens at the behest of some third person and yet he would be unnecessarily visited with the extreme and harsh penalty of confiscation for no fault of him !! Under such circumstances to confiscate the truck, etc. , without prior notice to the registered owner of the truck being quite unreasonable, harsh and unjust, it is indeed quite rightly provided in proviso to Section 61-B of the Act to serve the notice in writing to the registered owner of the truck, etc. The word registered owner is used to indicate not only that the truck in question is of the ownership of a particular person creating his right, title and interest therein, but that also simultaneously makes such a person liable for all sort of liabilities arising out of the truck. This in a way protects and takes care of the interest of both of the registered owner of the truck and ultimate interest of the state for passing the appropriate order of confiscation. Thus the object under Section 61-B of the act to issue notice in writing to the registered owner before confiscating the vehicle in question is to enable him to satisfy the forest officer that it was used in carrying the forest produce without his knowledge or connivance, etc. etc. Further still, ordinarily a person is believed to be the legal owner of the truck, if he is a registered owner. etc. Further still, ordinarily a person is believed to be the legal owner of the truck, if he is a registered owner. But then in a given case, like the present one, a person may not be a registered owner and yet for all the practical purposes, he has become the owner of the truck and that in event of confiscation, he was bound to be genuinely aggrieved person. Further still, if we carefully screen the proviso of the said Section 61-B, though in the first instance, it indeed enjoins upon the authority not to pass any order of confiscation under Section 61-A of the act except after giving due notice in writing in the said regard to the registered owner of the vehicle in question, and yet at the same time, in the second instance, if we read further the said section minutely, it also vests a discretion in the said authorised officer to issue notice in writing to the registered owner, if any only if in his opinion it is practicable to do so, etc. etc. Now this expression, "it is practicable to do so" assumes quite a great importance as it, to the said extent tones down the rigour of the duty enjoined upon the authorized officer not to pass order of confiscation except after giving notice in writing of confiscation to the registered owner in question. Accordingly, if on the material produced before the authorized officer, it feels that it is indeed not practicable to issue notice to the registered owner because having regard to the stipulated terms and conditions in the Sale Deed and more particularly in view of the fact that more than three years have already elapsed after the said Sale Deed came into existence by virtue of which the truck in question has passed into the hands of the purchaser and further still when all the liabilities arising out of the said truck were to be saddled on the purchaser who while claiming for the possession of the truck got it released at an interim stage by approaching the High Court on certain terms and conditions, the authorities can reasonably feel satisfied that it is not practicable to issue notice to the registered owner. Under such circumstances, merely because no notice was issued to the registered owner that by itself is hardly a ground to cancel the order of confiscation. Under such circumstances, merely because no notice was issued to the registered owner that by itself is hardly a ground to cancel the order of confiscation. ( 9 ) THUS, in view of the aforesaid telltale facts situation of the case, the document of Sale Deed executed by the petitioner himself in favour of Mr. S. M. Gandhi and thereafter pursuant to the seizure off the truck, the petition same being S. C. A. No. 1013 of 1985 filed by none else then Mr. S. M. Gandhi himself before this Court giving undertakings (as stated above) is a complete answer to the petitioners contention and accordingly, he had indeed no locus standi to file appeal under Section 61-D before the sessions Court. Not only that but it is simply inconceivable that the truck in question came to be seized for the alleged offence under the Forest Act for which mr. S. M. Gandhi went upto the High court, and yet, the petitioner herein knew nothing about the same for as many as 18 months !! This improbable part of the story is simply difficult if not impossible to gulp it down. If the petitioner who claims to be the registered owner of the truck in question keeps scheming and convenient distance with the forest authorities and ultimately, when some inconvenient order of confiscation is passed against him, if rushed to the court, such persons cannot be encouraged by allowing him to say anything in defence of his case. ( 10 ) FROM the aforesaid discussion, it is indeed crystal clear that whatever proceedings came to be conducted before the Deputy Conservator of Forest against mr. S. M. Gandhi was a legal proceedings on the basis of the representation based on the sale deed held out by him as the owner of the offending truck in question. In fact, there was, indeed no reason for the forest authorities to doubt Mr. S. M. Gandhi regarding his ultimate liability arising out of the truck in question, more particularly when between the Sale Deed in question dated 23-8-1982 and the date 19-2-1985 on which truck came to be seized more than three years had already been passed and that the Sale Deed was clear enough to indicate that all the responsibilities arising out of truck were fastened upon Mr. S. M. Gandhi. S. M. Gandhi. Thus, if at all and indeed there was anyone who in the facts and circumstances of the case was aggrieved by the impugned order of confiscation, it was none else then Mr. S. M. Gandhi only who quite interestingly appears to have acquiesced in the matter and remained silent by not challenging the impugned order of confiscation by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 61-D of the Forest Act ! In this view of the matter, there is indeed no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner has not and therefore cannot derive any right under Section 61-D of the Forest Act to challenge the impugned order of confiscation before the Sessions Court. ( 11 ) NOT only this but even the alternative argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that since there was nothing on the record of the case to even prima facie show that the truck in question and for that purpose even Mr. S. M. Gandhi or the petitioner were repeatedly involved in the forest offences, the penalty order of confiscation of the truck in question was quite harsh, excessive and unjust, and that the same should be substituted by awarding some lighter penalty cannot be accepted as the same is fraught with quite tricky, grave and dangerous potentialities likely to play quite calculated mischief and thereby harm and damage the object of the Forest act and in particular demand of time to stop at once the fast deforestation in the country as a trustee of the posteriors ! the deforestation and deteriorating environmental consequences go hand in hand causing serious problem of irreparable damage to the existence and survival of human race, animals, birds, insects, etc. on this earth !! In this view of the matter, bearing in mind the extreme dare devil manner in which the deforestation is unabatedly going on and escalating day by day at the hands of anti-socials, anti-environmentalists, the same requires to be sternly dealt with. Let us not forget that but for the active assistance rendered by middle-agencies like trucks arid such other vehicles, boats, catties, etc. it is indeed not that easy to carry on the anti-social business of illegally felling trees, etc. In fact, who will and why indeed should any person illicitly cut forest wood if it was not to be transported. Let us not forget that but for the active assistance rendered by middle-agencies like trucks arid such other vehicles, boats, catties, etc. it is indeed not that easy to carry on the anti-social business of illegally felling trees, etc. In fact, who will and why indeed should any person illicitly cut forest wood if it was not to be transported. away by some vehicles, catties or boats for ultimate gain ?? rather but for the active participation by middle agencies through the instrumentality of vehicle, cattle and boats, there were indeed no hope, prospect or future for persons involved in illicit cutting of the forest produce ! In fact, unless and until the owner of such trucks, vehicles, boats, etc. etc. , they satisfy the authorities that their vehicle, etc. , in question were used in commission of forest offence without their knowledge, etc. , they are by no mean less responsible rather they are participis criminis quite at par with the principal offenders involved in cases under the forest Act. When such is the grave and gloomy position of our forests, in order to control the fast deteriorating environmental condition adversely affecting survival on the earth, confiscation of carriers viz. , truck, tractors, boat, is the only way to meet with the situation !!11. 1. Further still, the forest offence are white collar offences carried out with advance schemes and designs !! accordingly, the person involved in forest offences more particularly the owners of the truck, vehicles, etc. etc. are intelligent enough to know the ultimate outcome of their illegal business adventure and risk that once their vehicle was found involved in the offence and seized by the authorities, confiscation of the same in all probability was inevitable !! accordingly, the person involved in forest offences more particularly the owners of the truck, vehicles, etc. etc. are intelligent enough to know the ultimate outcome of their illegal business adventure and risk that once their vehicle was found involved in the offence and seized by the authorities, confiscation of the same in all probability was inevitable !! Under the circumstances in order to clandestinely carry on the illegal transportation of the Forest produce and offence thereby and yet to enjoy the immunity of the vehicle employed by him being confiscated, by scheming device enter into the sham transaction, agreement to sale like the one in the present case, handing over the possession of truck to some person who may, althroughout the proceeding before the forest authorities claim to be in possession on basis of the Sale Deed virtually representing himself as a owner and ultimately, when the order confiscating the truck is passed such registered owner finding himself defeated, cleverly putting ahead the claim on truck as a registered owner all of a sudden from back door appear on the scene taking the shelter under Section 61- b of the Act i. e. , the impugned order of confiscation was illegal and unjust as no notice in writing to him as a registered owner of the truck in question was issued demanding de novo proceedings !! this cannot be permitted. While interpreting any provision of law, it is the foremost duty of the court to see that objects for which a particular Act came to be enacted is properly nursed, protected and helped to reach the desired goal and that it cannot be allowed to be victimized by some scheming mischievous device of the offender under the Act. The judicial pragmatism warrants that while defending the object of the Act, the Court has to be quite alert and show itself quite smarter and alive that the person smarting himself who is out to mislead the Court by getting the relevant provisions misinterpreted in too narrow, technical, pedantic manner which will ultimately defy and defeat the object of the Act ! In other words, while interpreting particular provision, the same is required to be interpreted in such an intelligent, just and positive manner which ultimately enhances the objects of the Act and thereby the overall public interest involved and not the way in which the same gets delegislated and defeated. In other words, while interpreting particular provision, the same is required to be interpreted in such an intelligent, just and positive manner which ultimately enhances the objects of the Act and thereby the overall public interest involved and not the way in which the same gets delegislated and defeated. If indeed the petitioner is the registered truck owner as he claims to be (of course, nothing has been pointed out to this Court in the said regard), and feels aggrieved by the impugned order of confiscation, then in that case, it is not that he has no remedy left open to him to get justice done merely because he being a third person, as in the present proceedings, not entitled to file an appeal under Section 61-D before this Court. His remedy by way of civil action for damages and for that purpose even under the Indian Penal Code against Mr. S. M. Gandhi is available, if he feels genuinely aggrieved by the situation wherein he is placed and proves his case accordingly before the competent court ! Having regard to the overall object underlying in the Forest Act, this is the only way in which proviso to Section 61-B of the Act can be looked at, appreciated and interpreted so as to avoid possible mischief with the Forest Act. This is the only possible way whereby bogus transactions on papers to defeat the object of the Forest Act can be taken best care of by relegating the so-called owner of the offending truck to the Civil Court, if he is really aggrieved to get redressal of his grievances. 6. To sum up, the result of the above discussion, spelling out the answers to three questions raised at the top, the same is an under :- (i) No doubt ordinarily, no order of confiscating the offending vehicle should be passed under Section 61-A of the forest Act without giving due show-cause notice in writing to the said effect to the registered owner of the vehicle in question, as envisaged in proviso to section 61-B of the said Act. But at the same time, it all depends upon the attending facts and circumstances of that particular case. But at the same time, it all depends upon the attending facts and circumstances of that particular case. In fact, after seizure of the truck in question, during the proceedings, if authorized officer ultimately feels that notice in writing to the registered owner would not be practicable, he has certainly a discretion to confiscate the same by serving a notice to the person who stands in a shoe of the registered owner like Mr. M. B. Gandhi in the present case where issuance of the notice to the so-called registered owner would simply be an impracticable idle formality and of no purpose. (ii) Even if any person claims himself to be the registered owner of the truck in question which ultimately comes to be confiscated, was not made a party to the proceedings, for valid reasons by the forest authorities, he under the circumstances being a third party/person stricto sensu, cannot be said to be an aggrieved person to have derive any right to appeal under Section 61-D of the forest Act. (iii) That in such cases like the present one, when the truck stands confiscated, the so-called registered owner is not rendered remediless to seek justice from the competent court, as the alleged misrepresentation by someone else as the owner of the truck is not only an offence under the IPC, as it is as well a case of civil action for damages, if he proves his case accordingly before the competent court!7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there being no substance whatsoever in the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, this Special Criminal application fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The impugned order passed by the Sessions Court is hereby confirmed. At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for six weeks time to enable him to challenge the order of this court before the Supreme Court. The time is granted up to 31st December 1994. The interim order granted by this Court (Coram : G. T. Nanavati, J.) on 30-3-1988 is ordered to be extended till then. Rule discharged. .