Judgment Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This application, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the orders dated 25.11.93 (Annexure-5), 23.1.94 (Annexure-8) and 8.8.94 (Annexure-10) and for issue of a writ of mandamas commanding the respondents to release truck bearing registration no. UP77-9929 to the petitioner. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of the application may briefly be stated. The petitioner is a resident of Kanpur and he is the owner of a truck bearing registration no. UP-77-9929. The truck in question was plying as a public goods carrier. On 2.10.93 the truck left Kanpur for Patna with potato bags. The consignment was loaded through Kailash Goods Carrier, Kanpur, and after unloading the consignment at Patna the driver Sri Ram Naresh Sharma was under instruction to go to Jharia for loading coal and for its carriage from Jharia to Kanpur. The petitioner received a notice from the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma, (respondent no.4) vide his letter no.2225 dated 8.10.93 calling upon him to show cause as to why the truck be not confiscated for carrying Khair wood in an illegal manner. The petitioner who thereafter appeared before respondent no.4 made enquiries and learnt that the truck had been seized by the Regional Forest Officer, Chajandi range, on the allegation that the said truck was transporting Khair wood in an illegal manner without any legal documents for transportation and had thereby committed an offence under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 . From the contents of the prosecution report filed the petitioner could learn about the details of the prosecution case namely that the Regional Forest Officer had received a confidential information, on the night of 4.10.93 about the illegal transportation of forest wood. In course of enquiry made in that connection the truck in question loaded with 200 pieces of Khair wood was spotted whereafter the truck as also the Khair wood loaded thereon were seized by the informant and brought to Regional Officer, Chauparan. The driver and the cleaner and other culprits having seen the informant and his force had reportedly fled away. A photo copy of the report dated 5.10.93 and the seizure list have been filed as Annexure-3. 3. The driver and the cleaner and other culprits having seen the informant and his force had reportedly fled away. A photo copy of the report dated 5.10.93 and the seizure list have been filed as Annexure-3. 3. The petitioner on coming to know about the prosecution case filed his show cause copy of which is Annexure-4 stating that the said truck was not liable to be confiscated for reasons mentioned therein. He also filed a separate application for release of the truck. Respondent no.4 without considering the show cause and without applying his mind to the facts of the case passed the final order dated 25.11.93 copy of which is Annexure-5 confiscating the vehicle in question. It was contended that respondent no.4 failed to consider that the total value of Khair wood loaded on the truck was about Rs.2,000/- and in view of this meager amount the confiscation of the truck valued at Rs.5 lacs was not justified in law. The petitioner then filed Cr. W. J. C. No.553 of 1993 (Ranchi) before the Ranchi Bench of this Court against the Older of confiscation which was disposed of by a Division Bench vide order dated 21.12.93 a copy of which is Annexure-6. The application was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may avail the remedy of filing an appeal against the order of confiscation which was appealable under Sec.52a of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and that the appellate authority shall also, if necessary, pass orders on the petition for release of the truck within three weeks of the filing of the appeal. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, (respondent no.3) which was numbered as case no.85 of 1993. The respondent no.3 was pleased to dismiss the said appeal vide order dated 25.1.94 copy of which is Annexure-8 and was pleased to confirm the order passed by respondent no.4. The petitioner again moved the Ranchi Bench of this Court vide Cr. W. J. C. no.509 of 1994 (R) challenging the orders of the court below and for release of the truck. The said application was disposed of by a Division Bench by order dated 27.4.94 copy of which is Annexure-9, whereby the petitioner was advised to file a revision before the revisional authority. W. J. C. no.509 of 1994 (R) challenging the orders of the court below and for release of the truck. The said application was disposed of by a Division Bench by order dated 27.4.94 copy of which is Annexure-9, whereby the petitioner was advised to file a revision before the revisional authority. The petitioner thereafter filed his revision application bearing no.14 of 1994 before the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Bihar, (respondent no.2 ). Respondent no.2 was pleased to dismiss the revision application vide his order dated 8.8.94 copy of which is Annexure-10. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order passed by the revisional authority and other connected orders and for the relief already mentioned earlier. 4. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument mainly on two grounds. First that the value of Khair wood found loaded on the truck was so small that confiscation of a truck of the value of Rs.5 lacs was not justified in the eye of law and secondly that the appellate and the revisional authorities had failed to comply with the directions given by this court while disposing of the appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner. Though no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents, learned J. C. to Government Advocate, however, controverted the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner and described the impugned order as legal and valid. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the value of Khair wood found loaded on the truck and seized along with the truck was about Rs.2000/- only. From the seizure list copy of which is a part of Annexure-3 it appears that 200 pieces of Khair wood, 15" to 50" and 4 to 6, had been seized. The value of Khair wood had not been mentioned in the seizure list. The petitioner in his show cause (Annexure-4) filed before the respondent no.4 against the proposed confiscation did not mention the value of the Khair wood seized. It was pointed out that the value of the Khair wood mentioned by the petitioner as Rs.2000/-has not been challenged by the State and there is no reason why the value of the Khair wood confiscated as given by the petitioner should not be accepted. It was pointed out that the value of the Khair wood mentioned by the petitioner as Rs.2000/-has not been challenged by the State and there is no reason why the value of the Khair wood confiscated as given by the petitioner should not be accepted. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court in K. R. Pusphan vs. State (A. I. R.1985 Ker.184 ). While dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 the court had been pleased to observe that "it is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court and of this court that the confiscation of the vehicle would be illegal and unsustainable, if the value of the contraband alleged to have been carried in the vehicle is negligible compared to the value of the vehicle". In that case, it appears that the District Judge had already recorded a finding that the value of the vehicle seized was Rs.80,000/- whereas the forest produce, carried in the vehicle was worth Rs.200/-only. It may be mentioned that in the instant case there is no finding recorded by any authority regarding the value of 200 pieces of Khair wood or for that matter the value of the truck seized. A decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Gurudev Singh Rai vs. Authorised Officer-cum-Asstt. Conservator of Forests (A. I. R.1992 Orissa 287) dealt with the provisions of Sections 52 and 56 (2a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that the vehicle cannot be seized in any circumstance if the contraband being carried was of a meagre value. However, it does lay down that where the confiscation of the vehicle does not appear to be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, a fine can be imposed in appropriate case, although the provisions of the Act did not provide for such a fine in lieu of confiscation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to produce any decision of the Supreme Court or of our High Court in support of the proposition that where the value of the contraband seized is meagre compared to the value of the vehicle on which the contraband was loaded, the vehicle could not be confiscated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to produce any decision of the Supreme Court or of our High Court in support of the proposition that where the value of the contraband seized is meagre compared to the value of the vehicle on which the contraband was loaded, the vehicle could not be confiscated. Sec.52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 provides in sub-section (1) that 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 article used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the use of the word may in Sec.52 did not make it obligatory for the Forest Officer to seize the vehicles in all cases and in support of his contention he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in State of M. P. vs. Azad Bharat Finance Company (A. I. R.1967 S. C.276 ). The court was considering the provisions of Sec.11 (d) of the Opium Act, 1878 as applicable to M. R and held that the use of the word "shall" in Sec.11 (d) shall not always mean that the enactment is obligatory and mandatory and it is for the court to consider in each case whether the vehicle in which the contraband opium is found or is being transported should be confiscated or not having regard to the circumstances of the case. Their Lordships proceeded to observe that three considerations are relevant in construing Sec.11. Firstly it would be unjust to confiscate a vehicle of a person if he has no knowledge whatsoever that the vehicle was being used for transporting opium. Secondly it is a penal statute and it should, if possible, be construed in such a way that a person who has not committed or abetted any offence should not be visited with a penalty. Thirdly if the provisions are obligatory, Sec.11 (d) of the Madhya Bharat Act may have to be struck down as imposing unreasonable restrictions under Art.19 of the Constitution. Thirdly if the provisions are obligatory, Sec.11 (d) of the Madhya Bharat Act may have to be struck down as imposing unreasonable restrictions under Art.19 of the Constitution. Sub-section (3) of Sec.52 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the State provides that subject to sub-section (5) where the authorised officer upon production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report about the 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. Sub-section (5) provides that no order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence". 7. I have perused the order dated 25.1.94 (Annexure-8) passed by the appellate authority namely the Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 8.8.94 of the revisional authority (Annexure-10 ). It was argued that the appellate authority did not pass the order in accordance with the decisions contained in the order of this court dated 21.12.93. The court had been pleased to direct that the petitioner may file order in Cr. W. J. C.60/93 (R) before the appellate authority who shall consider the same at the time of hearing of the appeal. A copy of the order passed in Cr. W. J. C.60/93 (R) is Annexure-7. The order of the appellate authority (Annexure-8) contains no reference to the decision of the court in Cr. W. J. C.60/93 (R) or Cr. W. J. C.553/93 (R ). A Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the seizure of a public carrier vehicle which was in custody of the driver and which was found loaded with 110 pieces of Khair woods which is forest produce. W. J. C.60/93 (R) or Cr. W. J. C.553/93 (R ). A Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the seizure of a public carrier vehicle which was in custody of the driver and which was found loaded with 110 pieces of Khair woods which is forest produce. The Division Bench had also been pleased to direct that the appellate authority before affirming the order of confiscation should have also considered that the authority is not bound to confiscate the vehicle only because the forest offence has been committed if the value of the contraband goods is negligible. The appellate authority in Annexure-8 does not appear to have considered this aspect of the case when it was bound to do so in terms of the order dated 21.12.93 passed in Cr. W. J. C. no.553/93 (R) contained in Annexure-6. The appellate order Annexure-8 appears to prbceed only on the basis that the petitioner had not been able to substantiate his contention that the driver of the vehicle had committed the offence on his own and not with the connivance of the petitioner, the owner of the vehicle. The value of the contraband is not even mentioned in Annexure-8. All these grounds were taken by the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.509/94 (R) which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court on 27.4.94 copy of which is Annexure-9 and they are incorporated in the order. A direction was given to the revisional authority to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and pass an order in accordance with law. The revisional authority in his order (Annexure-10) noted the case of the petitioner, inter alia, that the value of the contraband is negligible as compared to the value of the vehicle and therefore confiscation of the vehicle is against the well settled principles of law, and that of the prosecution that it is incorrect to say that since the value of the goods is negligible as compared to the value of the vehicle, the latter cannot be confiscated. It appears that the revisional authority in fact did not consider this aspect of the case which it was bound to do in terms of the order of the High Court and dismissed the revision mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to furnish any evidence to show that the truck was actually sent to Patna ladden with potato and that it was to proceed to Jharia for loading coal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is thus on very good ground in his submission that both the appellate court and the revisional court did not consider the directions of the court wherein they were obliged to consider the question namely whether the truck could be confiscated when the value of the contraband was meagre. As already observed earlier there is nothing on record except the statement of the petitioner that the value of the Khair wood found loaded was Rs.2000/- whereas the value of the truck confiscated was about 5 lacs. Even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that the value of the Khair woods given by the petitioner was somewhat on the lower side and that of the truck on the higher side, it nonetheless follows that the value of the contraband was in any case very small compared to the value of the truck. Since the revisional authority had not disposed of the matter in accordance with the directions of the court, the order passed by the revisional authority (Annexure-10) deserves to be set aside on that score alone. Since both the appellate authority and the revisional authority have rejected the case of the petitioner that the offence had been committed by his driver without his connivance, it would not be in the interest of justice to straight away quash the order of confiscation (Annexure-5) and the order of the appellate authority (Annexure-8) and the revisional authority (Annexure-10) and direct the release of the truck to the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the court may consider the desirability of setting aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the value of the contraband found on the truck was very small compared to the value of the truck and in lieu thereof impose a fine. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the court may consider the desirability of setting aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the value of the contraband found on the truck was very small compared to the value of the truck and in lieu thereof impose a fine. He argued that though Sec.52 (3)of the Forest Act does not provide for imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation, such a provision can be read therein in the interest of justice and in that connection he relied on the observations made by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Gurudev Singh Rai V/s. Authorised Officer-cum-Asstt. Conservator of Forests (A. I. R.1992 Orissa 287 ). , The court while dealing with the confiscation of vehicle under Sec.56 (2a) of the Forest Act somewhat similar to the provisions of Sec.52 (3) of the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 was pleased to observe, to quote : - "thus if in a particular case the authority may not feel satisfied that confiscation of the vehicle is demanded, keeping in view of the magnitude of the offence, but the authority may also feel that some sort of punishment deserves to be inflicted on the owner, the Court may generally feel that a lacuna has been left in the statute which must be supplied to implement the real intention of the legislature. When such a defect comes to the knowledge of a Judge, he has to supplement written words in such a situation by asking the question as to how the legislature would have acted had it known about the defect in question and then do what the legislature would have done according to the Judge. Thus if the deficiency in S.56 (2a), would have come to the knowledge of the legislature, it would have definitely provided for imposition of fine as an alternative punishment. Therefore, S.56 (2a) can be read to include power of imposing fine in lieu of confiscation of vehicle in appropriate cases. " In the instant case the order of confiscation of a truck valued at Rs.5 lacs for carrying contraband worth Rs.2000/- or a little more does not appear to be justified and imposition of fine in lieu thereof shall meet the ends of justice and Sec.52 (3) can be read to include such a power. " In the instant case the order of confiscation of a truck valued at Rs.5 lacs for carrying contraband worth Rs.2000/- or a little more does not appear to be justified and imposition of fine in lieu thereof shall meet the ends of justice and Sec.52 (3) can be read to include such a power. Thus the order confiscating the vehicle and the orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority upholding the confiscation of the truck are set aside and in lieu of confiscation the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand ). The fine should be paid within a month whereupon the truck shall be released to the petitioner, if not released earlier. 10 This writ application is thus allowed to the extent mentioned above.