ORDER K. Ramanna, J.--This revision is filed under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order in Crl.A. No. 7of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, D.K., and also against the order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer in proceedings No. SAS(AS) CR.650/FOC of 1993-94 (Cr. No. 26 of 1994 of Uppinangady P.S.). 2.The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that, on receipt of credible information about smuggling of sandalwood in an Autorikshaw in the night on NH 48, the Police Sub-Inspector, Uppinangady Police Station, along with his staff proceeded in Jeep No. MET 3912 and they were waiting at Neekilady cross road. At about 00.15 hours they sighted an Autorikshaw coming from Uppinangady side with high speed. The Police Sub-Inspector and his staff signalled to stop that Autorikshaw, but the driver of the said auto failed to stop it and proceeded ahead. Therefore, the Police Sub-Inspector and staff chased the Autorikshaw and made to stop at Bollaru. Immediately, the driver tried to escape, but the Police apprehended him. On checking, they found that the Autorikshaw bearing Registration No. CTA 9603 was carrying gunny bag containing fresh sandalwood inside. After following the mandatory provisions under Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, they seized the gunny bag containing 11 sandalwood billets and registered a case in Cr. No. 26 of 1994 of Uppinangady Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The properties viz., 14 kgs of sandalwood billets and Autorikshaw were produced before the 2nd Respondent with a prayer to confiscate the said property. Accordingly, 2nd Respondent initiated confiscation proceedings and the Petitioner herein who is the owner of the said vehicle filed an application for release of the vehicle to his interim custody. When the confiscation proceedings was pending, the vehicle was released to the interim custody of the Petitioner on furnishing a Bank-guarantee to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, both parties had adduced evidence, after considering the evidence placed by the revision Petitioner and the complainant and after considering the materials placed on record, the Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the Autorikshaw in question was used by the Petitioner for illegally transporting 11 sandalwood billets weighing about 14 kgs. As against that order of confiscation the Petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. As against that order of confiscation the Petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. So after re-appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Sessions Judge also came to the finding that the vehicle was used by the Petitioner/accused for illegally transporting sandalwood billets. Hence, this revision petition. 3.I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent and perused the records. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that both the Authorised Officer and the learned Sessions Judge have failed to appreciate the materials and it is contended that even though the revision Petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against him, both the Authorised Officer and the learned Sessions Judge took a different view and passed the impugned order under challenge. It is contended that non-examination of the independent witnesses is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. When the prosecution itself failed to bring the revision Petitioner/accused under guilt for which he was charge- sheeted, then automatically he is entitled to have the custody of his vehicle. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Authorised Officer in confiscating the vehicle is illegal and calls for interference. 5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the following decision viz., 1998 Cr.L.J. 3182 (Xavier v. State of Kerala), wherein it has been held that; Investigation-Complaint filed by Assistant Sub-Inspector- He has himself investigated the case and submitted the final report-Investigation ought to have been conducted by higher Officer-Incurable infirmities and flaw committed by prosecution- Accused entitled to be acquitted. In 1979 Crl.L.J. NOC 10 (Kant) (Vishwanath Bhikaru Naik v. The State of Karnataka), it has been held that: Order of confiscation of the vehicle-cannot be passed unless accused is convicted. 6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the Authorised Officer as well as the learned Sessions Judge in detail discussed the evidence placed on record and came to aconclusion in passing the orders under challenge. It is further contended that initiation of confiscation proceedings is different from that of the filing of the criminal case against the driver of the vehicle. It is further contended that initiation of confiscation proceedings is different from that of the filing of the criminal case against the driver of the vehicle. The acquittal of an accused by the Criminal Court will not affects the order passed by the Authorised Officer in confiscating the vehicle. It is contended that in criminal cases, the prosecution is expected to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. But in the confiscation proceedings, the complainant viz., Respondent No. 1 placed sufficient materials by examining himself to prove that the said Autorikshaw was used for illegally transporting of sandalwood billets. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, the learned Government Pleader has relied on a decision reported in D.S. Vijaya Kumar Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hassan Division, Hassan, ILR (2002) KAR 1375 , wherein it has been held that; A Forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, is not dependent upon whether acriminal prosecution for commission of a forest offence has been launched against the offender or not. It is separate and distinct proceedings from that of a trial before the Court for commission of an offence. 7. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, the point that arises for consideration and decision is: 1) Whether the order under challenge passed by the Authorised Officer and the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous, incorrect and illegal ? 2) If so, whether it calls for any interference ? 8. The Petitioner herein was arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 26 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Forest Act, on the allegation that he was illegally transporting 11 sandalwood billets weighing about 14 kgs. The material on record also discloses that the complainant after chasing the auto apprehended this revision Petitioner, who tried to run away by leaving the Autorikshaw and in his presence and in the presence of other Officers, they seized the vehicle with gunny bag containing the said sandalwood billets. The material on record also discloses that the complainant after chasing the auto apprehended this revision Petitioner, who tried to run away by leaving the Autorikshaw and in his presence and in the presence of other Officers, they seized the vehicle with gunny bag containing the said sandalwood billets. When the Petitioner himself being the owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle, the contention that on that day some third party boarded his auto and after seeing the raiding party, he sped away by leaving that gunny bag and he was not at all knowing about the contents of the sandalwood in that bag and the revision Petitioner was not at all responsible for the sandalwood if any, found in the gunny bag in the dikki of his auto, cannot be accepted. At the earliest point of time, the Petitioner had filed an application before the Authorised Officer under Section 63 of the Karnataka Forest Act stating that on 5.3.1994 he took one passenger to Nettibail and while returning, one person stopped his auto when he asked that passenger about destination, in turn that person told him that he wanted the Petitioner to take him to Sajipa of Buntwal Taluk. According to him, the said passenger had one small plastic bag in his possession at that time while proceeding towards Sajipa, the Police stopped his Autorikshaw and on seeing them, the said passenger jumped out of the auto and ran away. Even though police chased him, they were unable to catch hold of him. Therefore, he is not responsible for the plastic bag said to have containing sandalwood billets. It is seen that when he was produced before the Court, he has not made such statement that some passenger had left small plastic bag containing sandalwood billets. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that he was not responsible for the alleged sandalwood found in his auto, cannot be accepted. So after considering the evidence of this Petitioner who has examined before the Authorised Officer on 14.7.1990 and also considering the evidence of Manjunath Shetty, P.S.I. and Sri Rajagopala Shetty, Assistant Authorised Officer, Kalasa, it is very much clear that on that day except this revision Petitioner no other passengers or persons were found and sped away from that place. So after considering the evidence of this Petitioner who has examined before the Authorised Officer on 14.7.1990 and also considering the evidence of Manjunath Shetty, P.S.I. and Sri Rajagopala Shetty, Assistant Authorised Officer, Kalasa, it is very much clear that on that day except this revision Petitioner no other passengers or persons were found and sped away from that place. Therefore, the contention taken by the Petitioner all along appears to be incorrect and both the Authorised Officer and the learned Sessions Judge have rightly turned out the contention of the Petitioner, which does not call for any interference. When once the Petitioner has admitted that he is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle on that day when he was driving the said vehicle and a bag containing sandalwood billets were seized from the auto, he cannot now contend that he is in no way connected with that sandalwood kept in the dikki of his auto. More over, the said Autorikshaw was stopped at the midnight i.e., 00.15 hours and it is also observed by both the learned Sessions Judge and the Authorised Officer that the said Autorikshaw is used to contrary to permit issued by the authority. Therefore, mere acquittal by the Magistrate Court does not mean that the seizure of the sandalwood from the Petitioner's auto is false. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court very recently held that releasing of the vehicle either to the interim custody or to the custody of the vehicle to its owner is improper and illegal. In the instant case, the Petitioner is an accused before the Magistrate Court and as an owner, he was found driving the said vehicle at that time he was caught after chasing and authorities seized the said properties after complying the mandatory provisions. In the aforesaid decision one ASI had filed complaint and he himself investigated the case and filed charge-sheet, but whereas in the instant case that the Sub-Inspector of Uppinangady and his staff after receipt of credible information found this vehicle coming from Uppinangady side, it was not stopped even though signals were given, it was chased and finally succeeded in their attempt to catch the vehicle. 9. 9. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is an auto driver and he is maintaining his family by driving the auto and therefore, on humanitarian grounds impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and as well as the order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer be set-aside. But, in the instant case the Petitioner is not only the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, but he is an accused before the Magistrate Court. 10. Therefore, I do not find any good reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer. The revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.