1. Acting on Range Officer Manasbals request, the Divisional Forest Officer Sindh Forest Division, Ganderbal, the Authorized Officer under Chapter-VI of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, 1987, initiated proceedings under Section 26(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, for confiscation of illicit timber and the Motor Vehicle, Tata Mobile bearing registration no.5761/JK01J which had been used for carriage of the timber. 2. Mst. Nazira Begum, the owner of the Tata Mobile, joined the Confiscation proceedings seeking release of the seized vehicle in her favour claiming ignorance about the carriage of illicit timber in her vehicle which she had stated to have been stolen. 3. On the basis of the Enquiry, the Authorized Officer, came to the conclusion that Nazira Begum had committed offences punishable under Sections 6 and 15 read with Sections 2 and 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act by allowing the user of vehicle no.5761/JK01J for carriage of the illicit timber and accordingly directed confiscation of the vehicle besides timber i.e 11.98 Cfts of Deodar and 67.14 Cfts of Kail, which had been carried in the vehicle. 4. The Authorized Officers order was questioned by Nazira Begum before learned Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, who, after re-appreciation of the evidence which had been produced by the parties before the Authorized Officer, recorded a finding that no doubt the vehicle had been used for carriage of the illicit timber, but Nazira Begums knowledge or connivance in the transportation of timber had not been made out. He, accordingly, set aside the Authorized Officers order of October 10, 2008 and directed the release of the seized vehicle. 5. Aggrieved by the learned Sessions Judges order, the State of Jammu and Kashmir, through its Authorized Officer, has filed this Petition invoking jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989 seeking setting aside of learned Sessions Judges order passed on July 06, 2009, besides the Notice issued by him to the Authorized Officer for his appearance in person before the learned Sessions Judge for non-compliance of the order. 6. 1989 seeking setting aside of learned Sessions Judges order passed on July 06, 2009, besides the Notice issued by him to the Authorized Officer for his appearance in person before the learned Sessions Judge for non-compliance of the order. 6. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, questions the Revisional Courts order on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in re-appreciating the evidence and recording a finding of fact, which, according to the learned counsel, was neither justified on the basis of the evidence on records, nor was it otherwise permissible in exercise of learned Sessions Judges revisional jurisdiction. He places reliance on Divisional Forest Officer v. Fayaz Ahmad Khan, reported as SLJ 2002 (2) 509 besides on Section Forestor & anr. v. Mansur Ali Khan, reported as AIR 2004 SC 1251 and State of Karnatka v. K. Krishnan, reported as AIR 2000 SC 2729 to urge that liberal approach, in cases of smuggling of timber and release of vehicle carrying the timber, was unwarranted. 7. Opposing the maintainability of the States Petition, respondents learned counsel submits that in view of the specific bar enacted by Section 26-B(5) of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, 1987, order passed by the Revisional Court cannot be questioned, by the State, invoking powers of this Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, no interference, in the well reasoned order of the learned Sessions Judge, was even otherwise warranted, as the provisions of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not permit re-appreciation of evidence of the Sub-ordinate Court for taking a view on facts, other than the one taken by the Sub-ordinate Court. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Authorized Officer and the learned Sessions Judge, Ganderbal. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Authorized Officer and the learned Sessions Judge, Ganderbal. 9. To deal with the petitioners first submission that the Revisional Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and recording its own finding setting aside the Authorized Officers order, regard needs to be had to the provisions of Section 26-B of the Forest Act, which for facility of reference is reproduced hereunder:- "[26-B. Revision before Court of Sessions against order of confiscation (1) Any party aggrieved by an order of confiscation under [Section 26] may within thirty days of the order or if facts of the confiscation have not been communicated to him, within thirty days of knowledge of such order submit a petition for revision to the Court of Sessions Division whereof the headquarters of Authorized Officer are situated. (2) The Court of Sessions may confirm, reverse or modify any final order of consequential nature passed by the Authorized Officer. (3) Copies of the order passed in revision shall be sent to the Authorized Officer for compliance or passing such further order or for taking such further orders or for taking such further action as may be directed by such Court. (4) For entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under this section, the Court of Sessions shall, as far as may be, exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as it exercises and follows while entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under the the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989. (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989, the order of Court of Sessions passed under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question before any Court." 10. Perusal of the provisions of Section 26-B(2) reveal that while vesting powers to confirm, reverse or modify any final order of consequential nature of the Authorized Officer, the legislature has intended to confer wide powers on the Court of Sessions, which, in my opinion, would include the power of re-appraisal of evidence, evaluated by the Authorized Officer. Perusal of the provisions of Section 26-B(2) reveal that while vesting powers to confirm, reverse or modify any final order of consequential nature of the Authorized Officer, the legislature has intended to confer wide powers on the Court of Sessions, which, in my opinion, would include the power of re-appraisal of evidence, evaluated by the Authorized Officer. This is so because the power of reversal or modification, of the final orders of the Authorized Officer, may not be contemplated, unless the Court of Sessions was conceded the power of re-appraisal of evidence, to take its own view in the matter, on the strength of the evidence produced before, and the records of, the Authorized Officer, for passing a meaningful order of modification or reversal of the Authorized Officers order. This is additionally so because the order passed by the Court of Sessions, in revision, is final and not open to question before any Court. Any restrictive interpretation of the powers of revision of the Court of Sessions may not be permissible, in that, such a course would be an impediment in Sessions Judges taking a decision of reversing or modifying the Authorized Officers order, and may, in turn, defeat the legislative intent of providing only one, meaningful forum, for questioning the Authorized Officers order, leaving no option for its challenge before any Court of law. 11. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the States plea that re-appraisal of evidence by the Court of Sessions seized of the revision under Section 26-B of the Forest Act is unwarranted. 12. Before, however, dealing with the question as to whether or not the learned Sessions Judge has erred in returning its finding on the evidence available with the Authorized Officer, the objection raised by respondents learned counsel as to the non-maintainability of the States Petition needs to be considered. 13. The provisions of Section 26-B(5) of the Forest Act, which open with the non obstante Clause to the effect that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the order of the Court of Sessions passed against an order of confiscation, shall be final, which cannot be called in question before any Court, leaves no manner of doubt about the legislative intent, forbidding exercise of jurisdiction by any Court under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the order of the Court of Sessions passed against an order of confiscation, shall be final, which cannot be called in question before any Court, leaves no manner of doubt about the legislative intent, forbidding exercise of jurisdiction by any Court under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989 to question the order of the Court of Sessions. Further expression appearing in the Section that the order passed by the Court of Sessions cannot be called in question before any Court, too, supports the Legislative intent as indicated above. 14. It is thus explicit that resort to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State in invoking jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is impermissible. 15. The States petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to question the order of the Court of Sessions is, therefore, misconceived. 16. The Bar enacted by Section 26-B(5) of the Code that the order passed by the Court of Sessions shall not be called in question before any Court shall not, however, affect the special jurisdiction of Judicial Review which vests in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 103 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir. 17. The case law cited by learned State counsel is distinguishable on facts, in that, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, cannot by any stretch of reasoning be said to have been passed exercising any discretion. Learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons to justify his conclusion that the lock of the vehicle belonging to Ms. Nazira Begum, had been tampered with and some other key appeared to have been used in driving the vehicle whereas the duplicate key was with Ms. Nazira Begum and had not been used for driving the vehicle. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence recorded by the Authorized Officer, is well reasoned and warrants no interference. 18. The States Petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, held non-maintainable. In any case, I do not find any ground to have been made out by the petitioner-State justifying Judicial Review of the learned Sessions Judges order. 19. 18. The States Petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, held non-maintainable. In any case, I do not find any ground to have been made out by the petitioner-State justifying Judicial Review of the learned Sessions Judges order. 19. Learned State counsels other plea that the learned Sessions Judge having no jurisdiction to punish for Contempt of Court under the Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Court Proceedings Act, 1997, issuance of Notice by him to the Authorized Officer, to appear in person before him, was unjustified and without jurisdiction, too, is without any force, in that, while it is true that the Court of Sessions does not possess jurisdiction to punish for the Contempt of Court, in that, such jurisdiction vests only in the High Court but issuance of Notice by the Court of Sessions to the Authorized Officer for his presence in the Court, is not found to suffer from any error of law, in that, nothing debars a Court of law to examine, though prima facie as to whether or not a case for reference to the High Court seeking initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings, for punishment for committing the Contempt of the Sub-ordinate Court was made out and while doing so, issuance of Notice by the Sub-ordinate Court to the person accused of committing contempt of the Sub-ordinate Court, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 20. Even otherwise, I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge directing presence of the Authorized Officer in the Court, on a motion for non-compliance of the order passed in Revision, in view of the provisions of Section 26-B(3) of the Forest Act, in terms whereof, the Sessions Judge is vested with the jurisdiction to take such further steps or such further action as he may direct, in this behalf, to ensure execution of the orders passed by him in Revision. 21. For all what has been said above, I do not find any merit in this Petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.