JUDGMENT Malay Kumar Basu, J.: This is a revisional application directed against the judgement and order dated 22nd September, 2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court in Misc. Appeal No. 7/99 affirming the order dated 18th January, 1999 passed by the Dy. Field Director, Buxa Tiger Reserve (West) Jalpaiguri in Case No. 65/BTR (West) 1998. The relevant facts leading to this revision may be summarised as follows. 2. The petitioner's truck bearing No. WB 37/4044 was caught by the Forest Ranger, Damanpur Range on 2nd August, 1998 at about 2.30 A.M. in course of his night patrolling along with the members of his staff of the Head Quarters Mobile Range while the truck was coming from Alipurduar towards Cooch Behar suspecting the article lying on the truck being covered with tarpaulin to be illegal produce. They tried to stop the vehicle but the vehicle in stead of stopping increased its speed and in the process dashed against some members of the forest staff who were standing on the road and in the melee the truck driver as well as the helper ran away leaving the truck at that spot. On raiding the same they found that it was loaded with substantial amount of Sal and Misc. timber without Govt. hammer mark. The Range Officer then lodged F.LR. with the Alipurduar Police Station after getting them thoroughly checked and the quantum of illegal timber ascertained and seizing 34 pieces of Sal and Misc. timber and also the truck. The Range Officer judging the gravity of the offence requested the forest officer for confiscating the said truck with its contents as shown in the seizure list. The value of the seized forest produce was estimated to be 3.5 lakhs. Thereafter the seizing officer sent a notice to the owner of the truck, Sri Ramdulal Ghosh of New Kenda, Burdwan, by post directing him to show cause within 30 days why the seized truck would not be confiscated. In response thereto the owner, Shri Ramdulal Ghosh, (the present revisional applicant), sent a letter showing cause wherein he pleaded his ignorance and stated that he had been informed that his truck had been hijacked from Alipurduar where it was sent to carry rice on hire. In response thereto the owner, Shri Ramdulal Ghosh, (the present revisional applicant), sent a letter showing cause wherein he pleaded his ignorance and stated that he had been informed that his truck had been hijacked from Alipurduar where it was sent to carry rice on hire. He further stated that on getting such information he sent his man to search for the truck and came to know that it had been detained by the Range Officer for carrying illicit forest produce. He also added that he had cautioned his driver not to load any illicit articles in his truck for carrying purpose. He prayed for mercy and for an order releasing the vehicle, otherwise, his family would suffer starvation. He also got the names and addresses of the driver and helper who were in the truck at the relevant time and who had fled away. Another show cause notice was issued by the forest officer on 28th August, 1998 to the said owner, Sri Ramdulal Ghosh, to show cause why the truck would not be confiscated for violation of the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1988. In response thereto he stated the same fact and made the same prayer for release of his seized truck. 3. The forest officer heard the owner of the vehicle and held a trial and passed a judgement finding that the plea of ignorance of the owner had not been substantiated from the materials on record and passed the impugned order confiscating the seized truck. Being aggrieved by this order the owner of the truck preferred an appeal before the District Judge under section 59D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The learned District Judge after having heard both sides and considering the materials found that the order of the forest officer was quite justified and did not call for any interference and accordingly he affirmed that order dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by that appellate order of the learned District Judge the owner of the vehicle has preferred the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the same as erroneous and illegal. 4. Mr. Being aggrieved by that appellate order of the learned District Judge the owner of the vehicle has preferred the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the same as erroneous and illegal. 4. Mr. Nath at the very outset has submitted that he does not raise any question as to the maintainability of this revisional application, although under section 59 D (2) of the Act it has been provided that the order of the District Judge under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court. Mr. Nath honestly and frankly submits that this being a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the limitation will not encompass it since this power of the court is being invoked by way of exercising the general superintendence over the order of the lower courts and cannot be treated as strictly an appeal or revision. Be that as it may, since Mr. Nath does not raise any issue on the question of maintainability in view of the said provision of section 59D(2) of the Indian Forest Act there is no need for entering into any discussion in this regard for the aforesaid reason. 5. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, it is clearly found from the evidences adduced by both the parties before the authorised forest officer that although admittedly the truck was caught red handed with illicit forest produce thereon and although the driver and the helper who were in the truck at that time fled out the sight of the forest staff and officer and although the owner of the vehicle after having admitted in his show-cause-petition that his driver had been influenced by some miscreants and was beyond his control, there has been no attempt on the part of the owner of the truck to establish that the entire deal was beyond his knowledge or connivance or beyond the knowledge or connivance of the man who was kept in charge of the seized vehicle at the relevant point of time. The owner Sri Ramdulal Ghosh has examined himself but nowhere in his deposition there is any whisper that the man in charge of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, that is, the driver, was not aware of the existence of the illicit forest produce in his truck which was caught and detected by the Range Officer. Therefore it is clear that the mandatory provisions of section 59B(2) of the Indian Forest Act have not been complied with by him. This section provides that no order confiscating any vehicle shall .be made under section 59A if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorised forest officer that such vehicle was used in carrying the timber or other forest produce without the knowledge or connivance of the 9wner himself or his agent, if any, or the person in charge thereof and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. Thus under this section the owner of the vehicle has to prove not only his innocence but also the alleged innocence or ignorance of the man whom he gave the charge of the vehicle, that means, in the present case, the driver. As we have seen above, the owner has miserably failed in this regard. The application of the provisions of section 59A(3) of the Act becomes inescapable. This section provides that if the forest officer is satisfied that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest-produce, he may order the confiscation of the said property together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing the offence. Thus all these ingredients for applying the provisions of this section 59A having been satisfied, there cannot be any denying the fact that the authorised forest officer was fully in his competence to pass an order confiscating the vehicle, that is, the seized truck along with the entire forest produce which was found therein. 6. Now the question is raised as to whether such order of confiscation of the vehicle is a must or, in other words, whether the requirement of section 59A(3) is mandatory in nature. Mr. Dey has relied upon two decisions of this Court in canvassing the point that the confiscation of the vehicle is not a must, but is within the discretionary power of the forest officer. Mr. Dey has relied upon two decisions of this Court in canvassing the point that the confiscation of the vehicle is not a must, but is within the discretionary power of the forest officer. These rulings are reported in (1) Calcutta Law Times 1993(2) H.C. 252 in the case of Pijush Kanti Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, and (2)2001(1) Calcutta Law Times 442 in the case of Smt. Nazman Missa vs. The State of West Bengal. In the former the facts and circumstances appear to be almost identical. A truck was seized by the forest officials being found loaded with timber which was found to be illicit. The question arose when a petition was filed by the registered owner of the truck claiming return of the seized truck as to whether he had any obligation to take precaution so that the vehicle could not be used for committing such illegal deeds. This Court found that the onus was clearly upon the owner to prove that he or his agent or the person in-charge thereof had no knowledge or connivance in the matter of such use and also to prove that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use. It was further held that section 59A by its own term, in view of the use of the word 'may' therein, gives a discretion to the authorised officer not to confiscate the vehicle even when that officer was satisfied that a forest-offence had been committed in respect of any forest produce which was the property of the State Government and which had been produced before him and this clearly indicated that an order of confiscation under section 59A was not a 'must', even when the other conditions of the said section were satisfied. It was further held that the Forest Officer although not empowered to impose a fine under section 59A in lieu of confiscation might still choose in view of the exceptional facts and circumstances of any case not to order confiscation under the said section. It was further held that the Forest Officer although not empowered to impose a fine under section 59A in lieu of confiscation might still choose in view of the exceptional facts and circumstances of any case not to order confiscation under the said section. Thus the exercise of the power of confiscation on the part of the forest officer under section 59A was found rather discretionary and not mandatory and as a result it left ample opportunity for the High Court to impose fine in lieu of confiscation of a vehicle in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. where the High Court felt it necessary to do so for securing the ends of justice, even where the provisions of section 59A were attracted and the order of confiscation had been passed by the forest officer under that section. 7. In the case in hand similar exigencies are found to emerge. As I have already pointed out, the owner of the vehicle has hopelessly failed to prove that the carrying of the illicit forest produce in his truck was not to the knowledge of the driver of the truck who was admittedly in its charge at the relevant time and the forest produce was therefore rightly confiscated. But so far as the question of confiscation of the vehicle is concerned, it will be justified to take the view which this Court took under similar circumstances and interpreting the word 'may' occurring under section 59D(2) of the Act as discretionary and not mandatory, the court came to the finding that in lieu of such confiscation if fine was imposed by the forest officer then the both ends of justice could have been secured. . 8. The latter judgement referred to above also enunciates the same principles under similar facts and circumstances. Mr. Nath while supporting the judgment of the learned District Judge in question cannot however show any justifiable, or, solid ground for not following the principles which was upheld in these two earlier judgements of this Court. 9. In my opinion, in view of the language used in the above provisions of section 59D(2) of the Act confiscation of the vehicle is not a must and the forest officer had enough of discretionary power not to confiscate the vehicle in which the illicit forest produce was found. 9. In my opinion, in view of the language used in the above provisions of section 59D(2) of the Act confiscation of the vehicle is not a must and the forest officer had enough of discretionary power not to confiscate the vehicle in which the illicit forest produce was found. Now that an order of confiscation in respect of the vehicle has already been made, the High Court has sufficient jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to impose fine instead of confiscation of the vehicle to be paid by the owner of the vehicle within a particular timeframe. 10. In the judgment under reference this Court after arriving at such a finding imposed a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on the reasoning that the yardstick for determining the amount of fine should be the value of the truck in question. Mr. Nath points out that in such a case the value of the vehicle may be ascertained on the basis of contents of the cash voucher or invoices etc. But, unfortunately no such scrap by of paper has been adduced into evidence or is in the record before us. In the case under reference also we do not find any discussion on such an aspect of the matter. Mr. Dey points out that even if the invoices etc in respect of the concerned vehicle could have been produced, even then the present actual market value of the vehicle could not be calculated solely on the basis thereof, because the depreciation value of the vehicle has got to be taken into account in calculating its exact current value. Mr. Dey also draws my attention quite justifiably to another important feature, viz., that the truck after having been seized about four years back has been lying stranded and unused for such a long period a fact which gives rise to the possibility of a further deterioration in its condition and a further reduction in its value in the market. Of course such methods may provide reliable yardsticks for finding out near accurate figure regarding the value of the vehicle, but the difficulty is that there are no materials on record in such directions. No evidence has been adduced in such respects. 11. Of course such methods may provide reliable yardsticks for finding out near accurate figure regarding the value of the vehicle, but the difficulty is that there are no materials on record in such directions. No evidence has been adduced in such respects. 11. In the case reliea upon by the petitioner discussed above under almost indentical circumstances the Learned Judge in the absence of necessary data put the value of the seized truck at a sum of Rupees one and a half lakhs by a process of approximation which obviously included a deduction on account of depreciation in the value. The relevant facts and circumstances being very similar in our present case, fixation of a value in that line will, in my opinion, afford an appropriate answer to the question confronting us. Accordingly, following that precedent let me put the valuation of the seized Truck in question at Rupees one and a half lakhs for the purpose of awarding fine instead of confiscation of the same. 12. Accordingly the orders of confiscation of the seized vehicle as passed by the Forest Officer, Jalpaiguri and affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge as the appellate Court be upheld, but in order to secure the ends of justice in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. I impose a fine amounting to Rs. 1,50,000.00 (One lakh fifty thousand only) in lieu of the order of confiscation of the truck. The Forest Officer, J alpaiguri be directed to release the seized truck being No. WB37/4044 on payment offine of the said amount being made by the petitioner-owner within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 13. The revisional application is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to cost. Xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties as expeditiously as possible. Revisional application disposed of.