G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) IN the present writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing of the letter bearing No. Aa ta sam aa of 1996-97, dated 15-10-1996 (annexure 'e') and mahazar dated 14-10-1996 (annexure 'f') issued by the 4th respondent-range forest officer, byndoor, to declare that the seizure of the petitioner's car bearing No. Kl - 13 / 505 by 4th respondent is illegal and to direct 4th respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for illegal and invalid seizure of the petitioner's car. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, her husband Mr. Jose thomas is running a hotel by name hotel highway garden at bhatkal, situated at national highway No. 17. It is said that on 28-6-1996 at around 12 noon the range forest officer of bhatkal along with his subordinate staff came to the premises of the said hotel and arrested one tipper lorry bearing No. Ka - 19 / 3464 with some timber wood logs loaded thereon. Subsequently, cr. No. 170 of 1996 was registered against the husband of the petitioner and some other persons for committing offence punishable under Section 24 (e) and (f) of the Karnataka forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter for short 'the act') and the rules framed therein. ( 3 ) THE further case of the petitioner is that on 29-6-1996, the 4th respondent came to the hotel and arrested two persons therefrom. Another case in cr. No. Or 9 of 1996-97 was registered in respect of the above referred tipper lorry, which was found loaded with timber wood logs, under Section 24 (e) (ii) and (c) of the act read with Rule 144 of the Karnataka forest rules, 1969. In this crime 9 persons were named as accused including husband of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE further case of the petitioner is that on 14-10-1996 while the car of the petitioner was being driven by her husband from taliparamba to bhatkal, the same was seized by the police and forest officers at 7. 30 p. m. at byndoor near a petrol bunk. According to the petitioner, since the car was not found carrying any forest produce, therefore there was no occasion for the seizure thereof and as such the act of the respondent-forest officials is illegal and unauthorised. 30 p. m. at byndoor near a petrol bunk. According to the petitioner, since the car was not found carrying any forest produce, therefore there was no occasion for the seizure thereof and as such the act of the respondent-forest officials is illegal and unauthorised. ( 5 ) THE case of the respondent as disclosed in the statement of objections is that the husband of the petitioner Mr. Jose and one Mr. Mathew joy along with 7 others felled certain teak trees from kursigudde reserve forest of byndoor range and prepared timber out of the same. The timbers so prepared was then transported by the accused to ghorte of bhatkal by using tipper lorry bearing No. Ka - 19 / 3464 and car in question. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the respondents the investigation conducted by the respondents have further revealed that the accused were smuggling the said illegally felled material to Kerala state. It has been stated that on interrogation of accused 1 - joyi and accused 2-joseph, it has surfaced that the car in question has been used for committing the said offence. Copies of the statements of the said accused persons, which were recorded on 1-7-1996, have been filed as annexures 'r-1' and 'r-2', respectively. It is under the said circumstances that the car in question has been seized and subjected to confiscation proceedings under the Provisions of the act and the rules, which is in progress. ( 7 ) SECTION 62 of the act empowers seizure of the properties liable to confiscation. Section 2 (5) of the act defines torest offence' to means an offence punishable under the act or under any rules made thereunder. ( 8 ) SECTION 24 of the act provides for acts prohibited in reserved forests. ( 7 ) SECTION 62 of the act empowers seizure of the properties liable to confiscation. Section 2 (5) of the act defines torest offence' to means an offence punishable under the act or under any rules made thereunder. ( 8 ) SECTION 24 of the act provides for acts prohibited in reserved forests. Clauses (e) and (f) thereof which as well create torest offences' reads thus :"any person who (a) to (d) xxx xxx xxx; (e) fells, cuts, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages the same; (f) quarries stone, burns lime or charcoal, or collects, subjects to any manufacturing process, or removes, any forest produce; (g) xxx xxx xxx; or who abets committing of any of the above prohibited acts shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both, and in addition be liable to pay such compensation for the damage done to the forests as the convicting court may direct to be paid". ( 9 ) THEREFORE, keeping in view the materials brought on record by the respondents during the investigation conducted by them, there can be a reason to believe on the part of the statutory authorities to prima facie conclude that the car in question was also used in committing the offence in question, since it was used to carry the offenders. A vehicle cannot be said to have been used for committing the forest offence only if it is used for transport of forest produce. ( 10 ) SECTION 62 (1) of the Act, which is relevant for the purpose, reads thus :"when there is a reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing any such offence. , may be seized by any forest officer or police officer". ( 11 ) FROM the beading of Section 62 (1) it is quite clear that if there is a reason to believe that the forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with, inter alia, any vehicle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. ( 11 ) FROM the beading of Section 62 (1) it is quite clear that if there is a reason to believe that the forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with, inter alia, any vehicle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. In the present case as noticed above, there appears to be sufficient material to form a reason to believe that the car was used in committing offence in question, giving requisite authority to the respondents to seize the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that only because there is no allegation or material on record to show that the car in question was used for transportation of forest produce, therefore the seizure is bad accordingly, this ground taken on behalf of the petitioner fails. ( 12 ) I further find that under Section 63 there is in ternal remedy available to the petitioner for release of the car, which reads as under :"63. Power to release property seized under Section 62, any forest officer of a rank not inferior to that of a forest ranger who, or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats, vehicles or cattle under Section 62 may, subject to Section 71-g, 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 had been made". ( 13 ) KEEPING in view the facts referred to above and the respective pleadings of the parties, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Section 63 of the Act, seeking release of the car in question in accordance with law. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .