Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 17th April 2012passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest & Environment), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Confiscation Revision No. 100 of 2011 (Annexure-5), whereunder the order dated 1st July 2011 passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 1 of 2010 (Annexure-4) as also the original order dated 8th August 2009 passed in Confiscation Case No. 23 of 2005 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh, has been confirmed and the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner consequently has prayed for release of coal and vehicle bearing Registration No. PB-07B-3966, as according to him, the entire confiscation proceeding is wholly without any basis as this court has categorically held in its judgment dated 11th September 2009 in Cr. M.P. No. 853 of 2005 in respect of the same incidence and the alleged forest offences that no offence under sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is made out against the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, on a complaint, the Forest Range Officer, Gola Range, Ramgarh intercepted a truck bearing registration no. PB-07B-3966 loaded with coal and upon questioning, documents relating to such transportation of coal could not be produced by the Khalashi of the truck, while the driver had fled away. Accordingly, coal and the vehicle both were seized by the respondent authorities and a confiscation proceeding vide confiscation case no. 23 of 2005 was initiated before the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is submitted that the prosecution was also launched against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by the Range Officer, Gola Range, Ramgarh alleging commission of offence under sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. In the said criminal case being G. No. 231 of 2005, cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh vide order dated 17th June 2006 for the offences under the Indian Forest Act against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the entire criminal proceeding as also the order of cognizance dated 17th June 2006 in Cr. M.P. No. 853 of 2005 before this court. This court after hearing the parties, has by the detailed judgment 11th September 2009, quashed the entire criminal proceedings as well as the impugned order. 4. The petitioner challenged the entire criminal proceeding as also the order of cognizance dated 17th June 2006 in Cr. M.P. No. 853 of 2005 before this court. This court after hearing the parties, has by the detailed judgment 11th September 2009, quashed the entire criminal proceedings as well as the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicability of sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act have been comprehensibly dealt with in the said judgement and this court arrived at a finding that the respondents have no power to issue any notification or frame rules for transit of coal. It is submitted that this court had also found that there was no allegation against the petitioner or other accused persons that they were mining the coal in the forest area. It is submitted that this court also held that admittedly, coal in question is not a forest produce and therefore, the rule for transit of forest produce framed under section 41 of the Indian Forest Act has no application in the case of transit of coal. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the impugned order of confiscation of the vehicle and coal in question is unsustainable in law as it has been squarely held by this court that no forest offence has been committed by the petitioner. He further submits that section 52 of the Indian Forest Act can only be made applicable if any forest offence is said to be committed in respect of any forest produce by using tools, boats, carts or cattle which can be subjected to confiscation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the confiscation proceedings are independent of the criminal prosecution. The confiscation proceedings were pursued after the seizure of the truck loaded with coal coming out from the forest area and it was in the teeth of the provisions of sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The contention of the petitioner has been considered by the original authority as well as Appellate Authority and the very question relating to quashing of the criminal prosecution has also been considered by the Appellate Authority as also by the Revisional Authority and they have not found any good reason to interfere with the order of confiscation. 6. The contention of the petitioner has been considered by the original authority as well as Appellate Authority and the very question relating to quashing of the criminal prosecution has also been considered by the Appellate Authority as also by the Revisional Authority and they have not found any good reason to interfere with the order of confiscation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. From perusal of the original order contained at annexure-3 dated 8th August 2009, it is apparent that the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle and coal were initiated against the petitioner for having violated the provisions of sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 along with its amendments made by the erstwhile State of Bihar which are also applicable in the State of Jharkhand. For the same incidence, criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner. The petitioner moved this court being aggrieved by the criminal prosecution in Cr. M.P. No. 853 of 2005 wherein the question relating to the commission of offence under the relevant provisions of sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were squarely considered by this court and after elaborately referring to the aforesaid provisions, this court came to a finding that no offence under sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act is made out. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order of cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh was quashed vide judgment dated 11th September 2009. Though these facts were brought to the notice of the appellate authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh in Confiscation Appeal no. 1 of 2010 as also before the Revisional Authority in Revision Confiscation Case No. 100 of 2011, but they have failed to appreciate the facts as well as law and held that confiscation proceeding can also be pursued if forest offences are committed by the use of the vehicle or such other article by the person concerned. 7. As it has already been held by this court in its judgment dated 11th September 2009 passed in Cr. 7. As it has already been held by this court in its judgment dated 11th September 2009 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 853 of 2005 that no forest offence is made out, therefore the confiscation proceedings initiated and confirmed even at the stage of revision on the ground that the petitioner had committed forest offence by the use of such vehicle, is itself without any basis and justification. In these circumstances, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is allowed. I.A. also stands allowed.