Judgment :- Question involved in these Writ Petitions is as to whether an authorised officer of the Forest Department has got power to release the vehicle seized pending confiscation proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, hereinafter called the 'Act'. In all these cases, forest authorities took the view that pending confiscation proceedings, they have no power to release the vehicle, if the offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory which is the property of the Government. 2. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with offences, penalties and procedure. Section 52 of the Act authorises Forest Officer or Police Officer, when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or other forest produce, to seize such timber or produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence. Officer who is seizing the property under sub-section (1) shall place on such property or the receptacle, if any, in which it is contained, a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall as soon as may be make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. Magistrate upon receipt of any such report shall take such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accused and the disposal of the property, according to law. When any person is convicted of a forest offence, all timber or other forest produce in respect of which such offence has been committed, and all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles, cattle or any other article used in committing such offence shall be liable, by order of the convicting Magistrate to confiscation. Section 53 enables any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger, who or whose subordinate has seized any tools, boats, vehicles or cattle under the provisions of Section 52, to release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. 3. 3. However, Section 61A of the Act says not withstanding anything contained in Sections 52 to 61, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory which is the property of the 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, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence, before an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette, not being below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Where an authorised officer seizes under sub-section (1) of Section 52 any timber, charcoal, firewood, or ivory which is the property of Government, or where any such property is produced before an authorised officer under sub-section (1) of this section, and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of such property, such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such forest offence, order confiscation of the property so seized together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence. However, no order confiscating any timber, charcoal, firewood, ivory, tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle shall be made under Section 61A unless the person from whom the same is seized is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such timber, charcoal, firewood, ivory, tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle. He should also be given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation and a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. However, no order confiscating any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made under Section 61A 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 the timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. 4. 4. It is therefore, evident, if the owner of the vehicle can prove to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle, was used in carrying the timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory without his knowledge, or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle, and had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use, the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle, or cattle, etc., cannot be confiscated. 5. Question may also arise as to whether, if the owner of the vehicle or his agent can prima facie prove to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned that the vehicle was used without their knowledge or connivance, and that they had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use, the vehicle could be released pending finalisation of confiscation proceedings by any officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests. In several cases, for completion of confiscation proceedings considerable time is taken and the vehicles are kept in the department custody and subjected to sun and rain, causing considerable loss to the property. There are cases where vehicles are hypothecated to financing companies, with the result in genuine cases the owner finds it difficult to pay the hire purchase instalments. In certain cases financing companies also approach the forest authorities for release of the vehicle. There may be genuine cases where vehicles seized on suspicious circumstances are later let off in confiscation proceedings. By the time, the owners of the vehicles would be put to considerable financial loss. Therefore question as to whether forest authorities have power to release the vehicle in appropriate cases pending finalisation of confiscation proceedings assumes importance. 6. Section 53 of the Act authorises the forest officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger to release tools, boats, vehicles or cattle, etc., on execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property to release, if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. However, a contention has been raised by learned Government Pleader that if the offence is with regard to Government property and liable for confiscation under Section 61A of the Act, no power is vested on the authorities to release the vehicle. Learned Government Pleader placed emphasis on the non-obstante clause in Section 61A, and contended that because of non-obstante clause in Section 61A, Section 53, cannot be made applicable in a case where Government property is involved. 7. If the words of the enactment are clear and are capable of only one interpretation on a plain and grammatical construction of the words thereof, a non-obstante clause cannot cut down the construction and restrict the scope of its operation. In such cases, the non-obstante clause has to be read as clarifying the whole position and must be understood to have been incorporated in the enactment by the legislature by way of abundant caution and not by way of limiting the ambit and scope of the operative part of the enactment. A clause beginning with 'notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter' is sometimes appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision or Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause : See Union of India v. G. M. Kokil, AIR 1984 SC 1022; Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, AIR 1987 SC 117; Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal, AIR 1991 SC 558 : (1991 Cri LJ 654), and M/s. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 672. 8. Non-obstante clause under Section 61A re-emphasises the position that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 52 to 61, where an offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, charcoal, firewood, or ivory which is the property of the Government, 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, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence before an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette, not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests. Section 61A(2) authorises its confiscation, and does not curtail the power of the forest authorities in releasing the vehicle in appropriate cases. Section 61A(2) authorises its confiscation, and does not curtail the power of the forest authorities in releasing the vehicle in appropriate cases. Section 61 states nothing hereinbefore contained shall be deemed to prevent a forest officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests holding charge of a forest division from directing at any time the immediate release of any property seized under Section 52 and the withdrawal of any charge made in respect of such property. 9. I have held in Varghese Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1996) 2 Ker LT 358, that mode of exercise of the power by an authority while dealing with forest offence cannot be equated with mode of power of exercise of discretion by an administrative authority, while issuing a licence, renewal of licence, etc. Various factors will go into the mind of the authority while exercising discretion as to whether he should release the vehicle which is alleged to have been involved in a forest offence. Question as to whether a vehicle is involved in a forest offence previously, whether persons who are involved in forest offence are habitual offenders and also if the vehicle is released whether it would again be used for illegal purposes, and whether the vehicle if released would not be produced. In addition that, the owner of the vehicle can also establish before the forest authorities that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance, and the person in charge of the vehicle had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. 10. A contention was also raised, in certain cases value of the property involved is negligible compared to the value of the vehicle, and therefore there is no justification in retaining the vehicle which is a valuable property as far as the owner is concerned. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sukumara Panickar, 1987 Ker LJ 980, while explaining the Division Bench decision in Pusphan v. State of Kerala, 1984 Ker LT 1021 : (AIR 1985 Kerala 184), opined that the value of the contraband compared to the value of the vehicle may not be totally an irrelevant factor while adjudicating the confiscation proceedings. In cases where the value of the property is considerably negligible compared to the value of the vehicle, if various other ingredients are proved, there is no reason why the power be not exercised by the authorities under Sections 61 and 61A read with Section 53 of the Act to release the vehicle as an interim measure even pending confiscation proceedings. 11. It is pertinent to note that Sections 61A to 61M were inserted by Act 28/75 by the Kerala Forest (Amendment) Act, 1975. Reason for amendment was that there has been large scale illicit removal of timber, ivory, etc. belonging to Government from the forests. Provisos enacted into Forest Act, 1961, were found to be inadequate to effectively prevent illicit removal of timber, ivory, etc. belonging to Govt. Therefore it was considered necessary to amend Kerala Forest Act incorporating deterrent provisions preventing illicit removal. Kerala Forest Act was enacted to unify and amend the law relating to the protection and management of forests in the State of Kerala. Government was also satisfied that deterrent provisions should be made to prevent illicit removal of timber, ivory, etc. As held by the Full Bench in State of Kerala v. Sukumara Panicker 1987 Ker LJ 980, we must construe the provisions of the Act in the light of the preamble, object and scheme of the Act. 12. We must understand and construe various provisions of the Act as to substantially subserve the policy and purpose of the Act. Reading Section 61A(2), power is vested in the forest officer, and it should be exercised judiciously, bearing in mind the purpose and object of the Act. Therefore when the officer taken a decision to release the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings, he should be thoroughly satisfied that the vehicle was used without the knowledge of the owner or connivance or that all of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against its misuse. 13. Therefore reading Section 52 read with Sections 61 and 61A it can be concluded that forest authorities not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests have got power to pass interim orders releasing the vehicle in appropriate cases, pending finalisation of confiscation proceedings, subject to such terms and conditions which they think fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. In other words, if the officer has got power to order confiscation, then he has the power to order interim release of the vehicle in appropriate cases, pending confiscation proceedings. Which is the appropriate case is a question of fact depending upon variety of circumstances. 14. Therefore, the finding of the authorities that they have no power to release the vehicle when the Government property is involved cannot be sustained. I therefore, set aside the orders passed by the authorities in all these cases and allow the petitioners to make a fresh representation before the forest authorities, in the event of which officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests will consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, taking into consideration the guidelines formulated above. I make it clear that this judgment may not be taken as a direction to release the vehicle in all cases. It is therefore for the petitioners to convince the authorities concerned that the request made by them in genuine and bona fide, and in accordance with the guidelines prescribed hereinbefore. Original Petitions are disposed of as above. Order accordingly.