JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): This petition is directed against die judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal 7-S/l0.of 1995, dated 1st August, 1996. By means of said judgment, die learned Sessions Judge below has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated 6th March,1995 passed by the authorised officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Solan Forest Division, Solan, H.P. under section 52-A of the Indian Forest (H.P. Second Amendment) Act.1991. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that truck No.HP-07-1789 along with 51 Deodar slippers was apprehended by the Police at Police Check Post, Parwanoo on 10th September, 1994 and F.I.R. 83 of 1994, dated 10th September, 1994 came to be registered at Police Station, Parwanoo. This fact was notified. by the Range Officer, Parwanoo to Divisional Forest Officer, Solan-Authorised Officer, who inspected the truck as well as forest produce on that very day. The timber as well as the truck both were seized by the forest officials. Since neither the driver nor the owner of the truck or forest produce was named, therefore, notices under section 52-A of the Indian Forest (H.P. Second Amendment) Act, 1991, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were published b Hindi Jansatta on 25th December, 1994. As per this notice, the owner, driver or any other person connected with the case were required to file their reply within 30 days against the proposed confiscation of the truck in question. 3. In response to the said notice on 4th January, 1995 one Sanjeev Kumar-respondent, owner of the truck filed reply before the authorised officer. He disputed his liability as, according to him, the truck was out of order and had been parked by him outside his house. The truck in question, according to Sanjeev Kumar, had been stolen. In these circumstances he prayed for withdrawal of the show cause notice as well as release of the truck in question to him. Authorised officer after hearing the parties ordered the confiscation of truck No.HP-07;-1789 along with 51 Deodar slippers in exercise of powers under section 52-A(2) of the Act, after retaining one slipper as case property. In these circumstances he prayed for withdrawal of the show cause notice as well as release of the truck in question to him. Authorised officer after hearing the parties ordered the confiscation of truck No.HP-07;-1789 along with 51 Deodar slippers in exercise of powers under section 52-A(2) of the Act, after retaining one slipper as case property. This order passed by the authorised officer was questioned by Sanjeev Kumar before the appellate court below, who after hearing the parties, has allowed the appeal and ordered release of the truck in question in favour of respondent on his furnishing personal sapurdari bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan undertaking to produce the truck during the course of trial when and where required to by the trial Magistrate. 4. It is this judgment of the appellate court below which is questioned in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with sections 397,401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the State in the present proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of this case. 6. In order to curb menace of illicit felling as well as carriage of forest produce excluding fuel wood, which is the property of the State Government drastic provisions were incorporated by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the shape of Indian Forest (HP Second Amendment) Act, 1991 whereby for Sub section (2) of section 52 of the principal Act following sub sections (2) & (3) were ordered to be substituted. Similarly, section 52-A and section 52-B were added, which are to the following effect: - "S.52(2) - Any Forest Officer or Police Officer may, if he has reasons to believe that a vehicle has been or is being used for the transport of timber (excluding fuelwood) resin, khair wood and katha in respect of which a. forest offence has been or is being committed, require the driver or other person-in-charge of such vehicle to stop the vehicle and cause it to remain stationery as long as may reasonably be necessary to examine the contents in the vehicle and inspect all records relating to the goods carried which are in the possession of such driver or other person-in-charge of the vehicle (3) Every Officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been seized, and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure- (a) where the offence, on account of which the seizure has been made, is in respect of timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha which is the property of the State Government, to the concerned authorised officer under sub-section (1) of section 52-A; and (b) In other cases to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure is made." S.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 fuelwood), 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, no below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer). (2) Where an authorised officer 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 authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of the property to seized together with all tools," rapes. chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence. (3) (a) Whether 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 thereof shall whatever the order made under section 52-A is set aside or annulled 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. S.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 except, after giving notice in writing to the registered owner thereof, if in the writing to the registered owner thereof, if in the opinion of the authorised officer it is practicable to do so, and considering his objections, 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 if 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 with out 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 use." The order passed under sections 52-A has been made appealable within 30 days from the date of communication of said order to the court of Sessions having jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which order relates has been seized The said order has been made final under section 59(3) of the Act. 7. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid sections 52 (2) (3) as well as 52-A (supra) is that where an offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber (excluding fuelwood) resin, khair wood and katha, which is the property of the State (emphasis supplied), the officer seizing the said property under section 1 of section 52 is required without any unreasonable delay to produce it together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicle used in committing such offence before an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification published in die official gazette not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forest. After receipt of such information the said Authorised Officer has been authorised to order confiscation of the property to seized together with tools, ropes, chain, boats or vehicle used in committing such offence, of course he is required to issue show cause notice before confiscation order is passed. 8.In the instant case it appears from the impugned order that in the first instance the petitioner applied for release of truck before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but the application was rejected as during the pendency of such application authorised officer had proceeded under section 52-A of the Act 9. 8.In the instant case it appears from the impugned order that in the first instance the petitioner applied for release of truck before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but the application was rejected as during the pendency of such application authorised officer had proceeded under section 52-A of the Act 9. From the record another fact which has come to light is that the offence (in respect of timber in the present case) was not in relation to the property of the State Government, as such the Authorised Officer had no jurisdiction to have determined that question including passing of the order of confiscation of the truck as well as 51 scants of timber seized by him. In accordance with the provisions of section 52 (3) (b) it was only the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure was made who had the jurisdiction to have looked into this matter. In this view of the matter, rejection of the application filed by the respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on account of Authorised Officer having initiated the proceedings under section 52-A was patently illegal. 10. Respondent took up the matter before the Authorised Officer where order of confiscation had been passed under section 52-A and thereafter he preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in accordance with section 59(2) of the Act. 11. Prima facie. Authorised Officer had no jurisdiction to have ordered confiscation or to have taken up the matter with him in the face of the fact that the timber in question regarding which forest offence was alleged to have been committed, was not the property of the State Government. That being so, the matter was exclusively within the domain of the Magistrate concerned This aspect of the case has been completely over-looked by the learned Sessions Judge below and thus, he has fallen into .error while allowing the appeal, though in the impugned judgment it has been repeatedly observed by the learned Sessions Judge below that the timber in question had been fell from the private land of one Suresh Chand of Theog despite that he has gone on record to allow the appeal without caring to examine the provisions of section 52 of the Act. 12. 12. Faced with this situation, Shri Tanwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged that this court in exercise of its powers of superintendence and control in order to secure the ends of justice may not disturb the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge below. Needless to point out that when the Authorised Officer lacks the jurisdiction to have gone into the matter, the upsetting of the said order in appeal in no case can be upheld and thus the pica raised in that behalf by Shri Tanwar has no merit which is rejected accordingly. 13. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the authorised officer on 1st March, 1995 ordering confiscation of truck No.HP-07-1789 as well as 51 Deodar slippers and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No.7-S/I0 of 1995 on 1st August, 1996 against the order of Authorised Officer, supra are both quashed and set aside. The respondent is free to approach the Magistrate concerned for release of truck in question in accordance with law. Since the truck had already been released to the respondent, who had furnished sapurdari bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000-, it is ordered that in case the petitioner applies for release of truck within 2 weeks before the concerned Magistrate then till the disposal of such application, he will not be required to surrender the possession of truck in question to the authorities concerned and the same will abide with the result of the application filed by the respondent. In case no application is filed within 2 weeks, then the authorities concerned will be entitled to take back possession of the truck in question and on the failure of the petitioner to do so will be entitled to enforce the sapurdari bond furnished by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Solan in terms of the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No.7-S/IOof 1995. 14. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed.