ORDER K. Ramanna, J.--This revision is directed against the Judgment dated 12.4.2001 passed by he learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Cr.A. No. 168 of 1997, whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kundapura Division, Kundapura, dated 7.10.1997. 2. The main ground urged by the revision petitioners-State is that the learned Sessions Judge has totally forgotten that the initiation of confiscation proceedings is entirely different from that of the Criminal case filed by the accused persons. Though the Authorised Officer has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion for confiscating the vehicle, the learned Sessions Judge had disbelieved the said findings and set-aside the order, which is perverse, illegal and incorrect and calls for interference. 3. The case of the petitioners is that on 30.10.1988 at about 5.00 a.m. a tempo bearing No. CNG 8780 was used by one Gopala Devadiga, Manju Poojary, Mahabala Poojary Kundabarandady and Ganapayya Shetty (Respondent herein) for transporting certain firewood logs, which are forest produce. Therefore, such fire produce as well as the vehicle used were seized and after registration of the case and after complying with the mandatory provisions, the property was produced before the Authorised Officer to take appropriate action. The Charge Sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer in C.C. No. 735 of 1989 before the learned Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Kundapura and that the accused persons were tried for an offence punishable under Section 379 Indian Penal Code for committing theft of wood from the reserved forest and transporting the same in a tempo bearing No. CNG 8780. Of course, the accused were acquitted, but the Authorised Officer who initiated confiscation proceedings, after considering the evidence placed on record ordered that the vehicle should be confiscated. The Respondent herein being the owner of the vehicle challenged the said order of confiscation before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 4695 allowed the appeal. 4. In this behalf, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued that the confiscation proceedings is entirely different from that of filing of charge sheet against the accused persons. Considering the evidence, the forest produce were seized and the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated. 4. In this behalf, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued that the confiscation proceedings is entirely different from that of filing of charge sheet against the accused persons. Considering the evidence, the forest produce were seized and the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated. But in the confiscation proceedings, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent herein were implicated. The Respondent herein filed an application to release the vehicle to his interim custody. Since the Authorised Officer rejected the application, he preferred Crl.A. 168 of 1997. As per the order dated 2.11.1990, the tempo bearing registration No. CNG 8780 was released to the interim custody of the Respondent. But in the confiscation proceedings initiated in file No. SDK:DTCR:45:93-94, the Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the entire forest produce as well as the vehicle shall be confiscated. 5. It is not a case of the Respondent that he was not heard by the Authorised Officer before confiscating the vehicle. But the Respondent had failed to prove that the wood, which was transported in the said vehicle, was purchased from third party. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader relied upon a decision reported in State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan, AIR 2000 SC 2729 , wherein the Apex Court held that: The provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for releasing the forest produce or the property used in the commission of the forest offence, the Authorised Officer or the appellate authority has to specify the reasons which justify such release. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect mother earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also the protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also the protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. When any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come. 7. I have carefully analyzed the material placed on record by the revision petitioners and the decisions referred and relied on by both the parties. The learned Sessions Judge by relying on the decision of this Court reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 4695 wherein it has been held that: Confiscation of the vehicle used for transporting the sandal wood illegal-Acquittal of accused - Release of confiscated vehicle - Proper, since on acquittal of accused it cannot be said that the vehicle was used for commission of any offence - which is incorrect and improper. Mere acquittal of an accused on the charges levelled against him is not a good ground to release the vehicle to its owner. It is well settled that in criminal case, the prosecution is expected to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal. It is clear that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the main object of the enactment of the Forest Act and also the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan, AIR 2000 SC 2729 . 8. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal. It is clear that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the main object of the enactment of the Forest Act and also the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan, AIR 2000 SC 2729 . 8. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons the order under revision passed by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse, illegal and incorrect and liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 12.4.2001 is set-aside and order passed by the Authorised Officer dated 7.10.1997 stands confirmed.