JUDGEMENT 1. This Civil Misc. Petition (M) is directed against the order to the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Criminal Appeal No. 17-N/10 of 1995, whereby the order dated 4-5-1995 passed by the Authorised Officer, Paonta Sahib, appointed under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short 'the Act') was upheld. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. The police received some secret information with regard to smuggling of Khair wood from the State of Himachal Pradesh to the States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Raiding. Police Party along with some forest officials of the Range nabbed a Truck No.HNE-4611, which was carrying Khair wood. Both the driver and the cleaner could not produce any permit with regard to timber. The Truck was nabbed at a place within the State of Haryana. The police took the personnels with Truck as well as timber in question. A petition was moved before the Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib for the release of Truck in favour of the present petitioner but it was dismissed on the ground that under the provisions of Sections 52-A and 52-B of the Act, only Authorised Officer was competent to pass appropriate orders. An appeal was filed and the Authorised Officer was directed to dispose of the matter and it was so decided by the impugned order dated 4-5-1995, whereby the Authorised Officer ordered confiscation of the Truck with further directions to dispose of the Truck by public auction. The appeal before the learned Sessions Judge was also dismissed by judgement dated 7-8-1995. Therefore, the present petition. 3. I may quote below Sections 52-A and 52-B of the Act as introduced by Indian Forest (Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1991 :- "52-A. Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, 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 (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 office 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 authority officer may, where or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of the property so seized together with all tools, 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 expedient 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-A - (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 expect, after giving notice in writing to the registered owner there of if in the opinion of the authorised officer it is practicable to do so, and considering his objection, 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 all reasonable and necessary precaution against such used." 4. By these two Sections wide powers have been given for confiscation of property in connection with forest offence. Therefore, while exercising the powers under the aforesaid Act, the Authorised Officer, who is a quasi-judicial body, has to follow the principals of natural justice and as fair as practicable the procedure and spirit of the Cr. P.C. 5. Sub-Section (1) of Section 52-A, inter - alia, provides that no order of confiscation any timber, resin, khair wood and katha, rope, chain, boat or vehicle shall be made under Section 52-A except after living notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized and considering his objection, if any. According to the proviso to sub-Section no order of confiscation of motor vehicle shall be made except after giving notice in writing to the registered owner thereof, if in the opinion of the Authorised Officer is practicable to do so, and considering his objections, if any. Therefore, before exercising the jurisdiction under the above Section 52-B of the Act, notice has to be given to the owner of the Truck and unless it is given, the Authorised Officer does not get jurisdiction. 6. From the order-sheet maintained by the Auhorised Officer, more particularly, from the order dated 15-3-1995, it was recorded that "This Court has no business to trace the address of the claimant and serve a notice on it". There is nothing to show that any attempt was made by the Authorised Officer to trace the owner of the vehicle which could have been done either through police or from the transport authority as the number of the Truck was known. Therefore, the Authorised Officer has erred in law in not issuing notice to the owner of the Truck. 7. Therefore, the Authorised Officer has erred in law in not issuing notice to the owner of the Truck. 7. From the records, I find that the statement of only one witness was taken into consideration. Record does not show that the present petitioner was given a chance to adduce his evidence. This was necessary, as in the application before the Authoried Officer a plea was taken that when the kair wood was taken into custody by the Haryana Forest Department. It was compounded for Rs. 1,50,000/-. Copy of receipt for payment of the amount is also available on record. The impugned order is based on submissions made by the learned counsel for the present petitioner, which in my opinion, is absolutely incorrect. In such cases the evidence of the prosecution should have been recorded first, and opportunity should have been given to the truck to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, the statement of the accused should have been recorded by putting questions and while doing the statements of the witness of the prosecution, which came out during examination of the witness should be specifically put in special from to the accused and he should be given a chance to replay. It is made absolutely clear that while recording statement of the owner of the Truck, the Authories Officer shall not put any question by way to cross-examination. Thereafter, the accused should be allowed to afford an opportunity to produce his evidence. To safeguard the interest of the person, in the event of any person refuses to cross-examine, signature of the person or his counsel should be taken in the order-sheet. 8. I have given the above guidelines, as the Forest Officers, who are authorised to take action under the Act, do not have judicial experience. The State Government may also consider if short courses can be conducted to these officers so that they are acquainted properly with the procedure of the Court, as they will be exercising a power of confiscation, which affects the property of a person. 9. Learned Sessions Judge did not consider the impugned order in the light of the above observation, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as Authorised Officer is quashed and the Authorised Officer is directed to start with the proceeding de-novo. 9. Learned Sessions Judge did not consider the impugned order in the light of the above observation, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as Authorised Officer is quashed and the Authorised Officer is directed to start with the proceeding de-novo. He shall also keep in mind the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that a person shall be deemed to be innocent unless prosecution can prove that he is covered under the offence. 10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Authorised Officer during the week commencing from 22nd January to 27th January, 1996 and, thereafter, the Authorised Officer shall fix a firm date for hearing and inform the petitioner to be present the entire proceeding shall be completed within six weeks and if during that period it cannot be completed the Truck in question shall be released by taking proper security. It is made clear that during the above period of six weeks, if the petitioner prays for time, the period of six weeks shall stand extended accordingly. 11. With the above directions and observations petition is allowed. No costs. 12. DASTI copy, as prayed for, on usual terms. Petition allowed.