JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of truck bearing registration number M.B.C. 8177. On 9.1. 1984 when the truck was being driven by driver from Raipur to Bhopal, forest party led by respondent No.4 stopped and searched the truck. It was found containing 26 logs of teak timber and one quintal of fire-wood. The driver was not able to show any authority for possession or transport of the forest produce. Accordingly the truck, logs of teak and fire wood were seized and preliminary offence report was registered and the driver's statement was recorded. Notice dated 11.1.1984 was issued to the owner of the truck requiring him to appear before the competent authority (Sub-Divisional Forest Officer) on 18.1.84 for recording statement. On that day, the Manager of the petitioner appeared and his statement was recorded. The competent authority proceeded to pass an order finding that a forest offence was committed and confiscating the truck and the forest produce. The order was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. These orders are challenged in this writ petition. The aforesaid action was taken under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act as amended in M.P. (for short the Act). Provisions of section 52, 52-A and 52-B are also challenged in this writ petition. Section 52 of the Act relates to power of confiscation. Vires of the provisions introduced in the Indian Forest Act by M.P. Amendment have been sustained by this Court in M.P. No. 490 of 1984 and other connected writ petitions. Therefore, the challenge cannot survive. Confiscation has been ordered under section 52 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 52 prescribes four conditions before the order of confiscation is passed. An intimation is to be sent to the competent Magistrate, notice has to be issued to the person from whom the property is seized and other persons who may appear to have interest in the property and an opportunity should be given to those persons of making representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice. The officer affecting the seizure must be given an opportunity of hearing. In this case, intimation was sent to the competent Magistrate. This is seen in Annex-R9 to the return. The officer affecting the seizure must be given an opportunity of hearing. In this case, intimation was sent to the competent Magistrate. This is seen in Annex-R9 to the return. Annex-R11 is a notice issued by the Forest Officer to the petitioner informing him about the seizure of the truck on 9.1.1984 and requiring him to be present on 18.1.1984 for recording statement. On 18.1.1984 statement of the petitioner's Manager was recorded and on 19.1.84 the order of confiscation was passed. It is clear that while a notice as contemplated under Sec.52 (4) (b) was issued to the petitioner, an opportunity of making representation within a reasonable time as contemplated under section 52 (4) (c) was not afforded to the petitioner. This is important since burden of proving certain facts lies on the petitioner under Sec. 52 (5) of the Act. This aspect was not properly considered by the statutory authorities. The Sessions Judge in the revisional order did not deal with the requirement under section 52 (4) (c) of the Act. In these circumstances, the confiscation cannot stand. In the result, we quash the order of the competent authority confiscating the truck and the appellate and revisional orders. The competent authority may give an opportunity to the petitioner of making representation and adducing such evidence as the petitioner may desire and pass an order in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to this extent but without costs.