JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the orders dated 28.12.96 (Annexure P-l), dated 15.3.97 (Annexure P-2) and the Judgment dated 8.5.97 delivered in Crinilnal Revision No. 59/97 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the orders are contrary to law and the order of confiscation of the Jeep bearing No. MP 20 H-1515 is not based on any legal foundation. The brief facts leading to the petition are that on 30.9.96 the above referred Jeep was found transporting ten logs of timber (teak wood) without any transit pass or proper permit. When the seizure proceedings were going on, the driver of the vehicle threw away the logs and fled away from the spot with the Jeep. The Jeep was later on seized on 8.10.96 and the matter was submitted before the competent authority for drawing proper proceedings. The Divisional Forest Officer started the proceedings against the petitioner and ultimately on being satisfied that the Jeep was involved in a Forest Offence ordered confiscation of the same. A statutory appeal was preferred but as the same proved futile the matter was taken up in revision before the IVth Additional Sessions Judge who also by his order dated 8.5.97 dismissed the revision and maintained the order of confiscation. Being dissatisfied by these orders the petitioner has filed this petition. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities so also the Court did not consider the facts in their true perspective, did not appreciate that there were material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, the Panchnama prepared on the spot was silent about the material facts and the Tribunal/Court did not look the matter with a proper approach. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate contended that when the Divisional Forest Officer, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court after appreciating the facts have found that the Jeep was involved in the forest offence then it would not be proper for this Court to reopen the factual disputes and re-appreciate the evidence. He submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the parties at length. After hearing the parties at length, this Court is of the opinion that the document Annexure P-9 cannot be disbelieved. He submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the parties at length. After hearing the parties at length, this Court is of the opinion that the document Annexure P-9 cannot be disbelieved. The document clearly recites that on 13.9.96 the Jeep in dispute was stopped near the barrier but at that point of time after throwing the wooden logs the driver took up the Jeep and fled away from the spot. The three Tribunals after appreciating the evidence clearly found that the Jeep was involved in the incident. Placing reliance upon Annexure P-19 and P-20, it was contended that the provisions of Forest Act would not be applicable to the finished products. The argument, unfortunately, lost sight of the fact that in the present case finished goods were not found on the spot but the wooden logs were seized. It was lastly contended that from the Bill dated 23.9.95 it is clear that the finished products were being transported in the said Jeep. Rishabh Kumar in his statement dated 26.10.97 recorded by the Enquiry Officer had stated that he had kept two frames in the said Jeep, the said receipt/bill is in name of Munnalal Jain. The size of the frame is shown to be 5 x 6 and 4 x 6 while the seized timber was of different size. From the records it is clear that the bill was not in relation to the said timber seized from the Jeep. In any case, when the three authorities have found that the respondent/State was successful in proving the case against the present applicant then there would be no scope for any interference in this matter unless it is shown that the findings are perverse and are based on no record. After going through the complete records, this Court is of the opinion that the State was successful in proving its case and the Lower Tribunals have not committed any illegality. I do not find any good reason to unsettle the findings or interfere with the findings recorded by the Lower Tribunals. The petition has no force, it deserves to and is accordingly dismissed.