JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — The dispute is whether the Authorities under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short ‘Act 1972’) are obliged to release the vehicle from the Confiscation Proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of Orissa State Financial Corpo¬ration (in short ‘O.S.F.C.’) when such vehicle were purchased on being financed by the O.S.F.C. and the loan had not been liqui¬dated by the date of the seizure/confiscation of the vehicle. 2. The writ petitioner made a request to the D.F.O., Puri Division at Khurda for release of the sale proceeds of the con¬fiscated vehicle, i.e., Truck bearing Registration No. OSP - 3795, and as per the communication letter, Annexure-3, the D.F.O. refused to release the sale proceeds. 3. Relying on the ratio in the case of Orissa State Finan¬cial Corporation v. Range Officer, Sukinda and others, A.I.R. 2002 Orissa 130, the writ petitioner approached this Court for an order in its favour and consequentially to quash the letter, Annexure-3, issued by the opposite party No.2, i.e., D.F.O. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of this Court, and on 20.09.2004 it took the view that in view of the ratio in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (1) Crimes, 13 (SC) and the provision of law in Section 56 and 64 of the Act, 1972, correctness of the view expressed by a division Bench of the Court in the case of Orissa State Financial Corporation (supra) is required to be examined by a larger Bench. That is how the matter is before this larger Bench. 4. Mr. P.K. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the O.S.F.C. (writ petitioner) repeats his argument and states that once the O.S.F.C. has the first charge over the financed vehicle on the basis of financing the loan and the hire purchase agree¬ment, it has a stake on the sale proceeds and that should be in preference to the Forest Department even if they initiated a confiscation proceeding. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand argued that the loanee, even if a public sector undertaking, cannot ask for such a relief in view of the provision of law in Section 56 and 64 of the Act. 5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand argued that the loanee, even if a public sector undertaking, cannot ask for such a relief in view of the provision of law in Section 56 and 64 of the Act. 5. The aforesaid concept of the petitioner itself is incorrect, in as much as the concept of first charge or second charge has no applicability when the vehicle is not otherwise disposed of to determine the liabilities of the loanee. On the other hand the vehicle having been found indulged in forest offences was made subject matter of a confiscation proceeding and, therefore, the procedure followed for confiscation of the vehicle and for its sale is punitive in nature and not with a view to give benefit to anybody including the Department which initiated the confiscation proceeding. In the case of Orissa State Financial Corporation (supra) learned Judges discussed the decision in the case of Gurudev Singh Rai v. Authorised Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forest, Rairakhol Division, A.I.R. 1992 Orissa 287 = (1993) 76 C.L.T. 671, about imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation and thereafter held that : “8. In this case a quandary situation has emerged as to whether the State Financial Corporation which is an instrumental¬ity of the State would be deprived of getting their money, which was advanced to the principal loanee for the purpose of purchas¬ing the vehicle. The writ petitioner has not produced any docu¬ment before us to show whether at the time of advancing the loan any property was either offered by the loanee or by the guaran¬tor/surety as co-lateral security. In case such co-lateral secu¬rities were offered, it is open to the petitioner O.S.F.C. to proceed for realization of the outstanding dues against those co-lateral securities. It is further to be considered whether the amount advanced to the loanee should be treated as a charge over the property against which the loan was sanctioned. In the event the petitioner O.S.F.C. satisfied that the vehicle in question was kept as a charge for the loan, then it is open to them to approach the Authorised Officer claiming the loan amount from the consideration obtained after the vehicle put to auction. In the event the petitioner O.S.F.C. satisfied that the vehicle in question was kept as a charge for the loan, then it is open to them to approach the Authorised Officer claiming the loan amount from the consideration obtained after the vehicle put to auction. Since all such money advanced by the petitioner O.S.F.C. can be treated as a public demand as envisaged in Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and is being treated as a charge, in that event any confisca¬tion of the vehicle shall be subject to the charge of the O.S.F.C. The language employed in Section 56(2-a) of the Act is lucidly clear that the order of confiscation is not free from encumbrances and to that extent it is silent. Therefore, it is understood that since the loan was advanced by the O.S.F.C. petitioner by keeping the vehicle as a charge, they have a right to recover the same treating it as public demand.” 6. It is apparent from the above quoted decision that the provision in Section 64 was not brought to the notice of their Lordships when the provision in Section 56 was placed. Section 64 of the Act, 1972 reads as hereunder :- “64. Property when to vest in Government - [(1)] When an order for the confiscation of any property has been passed under Section 59 or Section 61, as the case may be, and the period limited by Section 63 for filing an appeal from such order has elapsed, and no such appeal has been preferred or when, on such an appeal being preferred, the appellate Court confirms such order in respect of the whole or a portion of such property, such property or such portion thereof, as the case may be, shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. [(2) When an order of confiscation of any property passed under Section 56 has become final under that Section in respect of the whole or any portion of the property, such property or the portion thereof, as the case may be, shall vest in the State Government free from, all encumbrances.] (Underlined by us to put emphasis) 7. The aforesaid position of law, which emerge from Sec¬tion 64, if read with provision in Section 56 of the Act, then the concept of parting with the confiscation amount to the lender of the money is a misconceived one. The aforesaid position of law, which emerge from Sec¬tion 64, if read with provision in Section 56 of the Act, then the concept of parting with the confiscation amount to the lender of the money is a misconceived one. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decision rendered and the ratio propounded in the case of 2002 Orissa (supra) is not correct. Accordingly the said decision is over-ruled. In the above context the view of the Apex Court is clear and categorical though their Lordships were dealing with a confiscation proceeding under the N.D.P.S. Act. With little difference in use of language in both the statute, Confiscation Proceeding under the Forest Act and the N.D.P.S. Act are in para materia. Therefore, the view expressed in the case of Ganga (supra) is followed. Their Lordships held that : “... In the absence of any definition of ‘owner’ in the NDPS Act, it would be reasonable to construe that the expression ‘owner’ must be held to mean the ‘registered owner’ of the vehi¬cle in whose name the vehicle stand registered under the provi¬sions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the aforesaid interpretation of the expression ‘owner’ in Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the NDPS Act, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge that the order for confis¬cation is bad, as he had no knowledge of the fact that the vehi¬cle was used for carrying any narcotic substances. The High Court, therefore, was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the truck in question having been taken on a hire-purchase agreement, for the purpose of Sub-section (3) of Section 60, the appellant shall be treated to be the owner.” 8. Apart from that, the claim of the O.S.F.C. as against its loanee (who had taken the vehicle on hire purchase agreement) brings the loanee and the sureties within the default clause under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (In short, ‘the Act, 1951’) or the heirs and successors of such persons. Proce¬dure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. Proce¬dure is provided in the Act, 1951 and the Rules thereof about the manner in which such loan is to be recovered, and in that context only the vehicle under the hire purchase agreement is placed as the first charge. If such property is not available for any reason, then the loan is not automatically waived or the loanee and his sureties are not automatically redeemed of the liability to repay. The State Financial Corporation is concerned with repayment of loan either from the property or persons offered as surety. Thus, a vehicle, which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1872, being not available to the O.S.F.C. for adjustment of the unpaid loan, that does not at all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the O.S.F.C. Agreement between the O.S.F.C. and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read with the provisions in the Act, 1951 and its Rules. On the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the Act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest of¬fence. Thus, by virtue of the provision in Section 56 read with Section 64(2) of the Act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by O.S.F.C. By doing that it amounts to grant ‘premium to the pick-pockets’ in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the O.S.F.C., the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. In other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the O.S.F.C. towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. Then it does not become a penalty nor the action be¬comes punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. 9. For the reasons indicated above, it is held that the O.S.F.C. cannot make a claim of sale proceeds of a confiscated vehicle on the ground that the vehicle has been purchased by a higher purchase agreement. Such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the Act, 1972 or the Act, 1951. 9. For the reasons indicated above, it is held that the O.S.F.C. cannot make a claim of sale proceeds of a confiscated vehicle on the ground that the vehicle has been purchased by a higher purchase agreement. A.K. PARICHHA, J. I agree. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.