JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-state. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For quashing the order dated 03.08.2013 (Annexure-7), passed by the Reviewing Authority-cum-Principal Secretary, Forest & Environment, Department Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) in Revision petition No. 2/van-Mu-(C)-82/2010 filed under Section 52-B of the Indian Forest Act 1927, communicated to the petitioner by memo no. 2/Van. Muc(c) 82/2010 3276/vapadt. 8/8/2013 against the orders confiscating the tractor of the petitioner, dated 03.10.2008 and 24.09.2010 passed in Confiscation Case No. 4/2007 and Confiscation Appeal No. 32/2008 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division Bokaro (Respondent No. 4) and the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (Respondent No. 3) respectively, whereby and whereunder the learned Reviewing authority has dismissed the Revision petition of the petitioner and refused to interfere with the order dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure-4) passed in Confiscation Case No. 04/2007, by Respondent No. 4 as well as the order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure-6) passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 32/2008, by the Respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder the Tractor No. JH-30F-5136 with its Trailer No. JH-01F-1165 of the petitioner, has been ordered to be confiscated for the alleged offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a confiscation case no. 4 of 2007 was instituted on a report received from Officer-in-charge Mahuatanr Police Station in connection with which a criminal case was registered under Sections 413/414/287 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. He submits that a confiscation proceeding was initiated in connection with a tractor and trailer belonging to the petitioner which was seized bearing No. JH 02 F 5136 and Trailer No. JH 02 G 1537 and it was alleged that illegal coal was being transported through that tractor and trailer. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon receipt of notice in the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner filed an application for release of this tractor and trailer denying the allegation regarding commission of offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It was contended that his vehicles were hired by the co-accused Goverdhan Mahato for carrying coal which he had purchased from one Ganpati Coal Traders. It was contended that his vehicles were hired by the co-accused Goverdhan Mahato for carrying coal which he had purchased from one Ganpati Coal Traders. Initially the coal was loaded on the truck bearing another registration number and thereafter it was unloaded and loaded in the tractor and trailer of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that said application for release of the vehicle of the petitioner was rejected by the authorized officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro vide judgment dated 03.10.2008. Thereafter an appeal was filed before the appellate authority and it was specific case of the petitioner that the tractor and trailer are looked after by the driver and the driver has complete control over it. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 24.09.2010 against which a revision was filed bearing revision case no. 2/82-2010 which was also dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2013. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ petition the criminal case which was initiated against the petitioner has been dropped and the petitioner with others have been acquitted and vide judgment dated 25.08.2017 and he further submits that neither cognizance was taken under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 nor charge was framed under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. According to the petitioner, in this background, as no criminal case initiated against the petitioner under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 therefore, the confiscation proceeding was ipso facto liable to be dropped. He submits that in absence of corresponding criminal case under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act the confiscation proceeding itself was not maintainable and was liable to be dropped. He further submits that otherwise also the impugned orders are perverse in as much as the goods were being carried without the knowledge of the petitioner and the circumstances under which the goods were being carried was mentioned in the petition for release which was filed by the petitioner. He further submits that otherwise also the impugned orders are perverse in as much as the goods were being carried without the knowledge of the petitioner and the circumstances under which the goods were being carried was mentioned in the petition for release which was filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2009 (2) JCR 555 in the case of Sarju Sahu versus State of Jharkhand and Ors.; 2011(3) JLJR 36 in the case of Shamin Ahmed versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr.; 2011 (2) JCR 450 in the case of Bansi Mahto versus State of Jharkhand and Ors.; 1998 (1) PLJR 21 (SC) in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale and 2001 (1) PLJR 804 in the case of Smt. Renu Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. in support of his contention that once a criminal case is dropped the seized vehicles and goods are to be automatically released. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submits that a criminal case and the confiscation proceeding are two parallel and distinct proceedings and same has no bearing upon each other. He further submits that upon perusal of Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, as per Bihar amendment, condition precedent for initiation of confiscation proceeding is that there should be reason to believe that the forest offence has been committed and there is no pre condition that for such purposes of confiscation proceedings the person has to be held liable in the criminal case also. He submits that in the instant case, at the stage of F.I.R., the case was registered under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. He submits that confiscation proceeding was initiated on the report received from officer-in-charge of the Mahuatanr Police Station regarding commission of offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. Thereafter the petitioner had appeared before the concerned authority and after hearing and considering the show cause, the concerned authority has refused to release the vehicle. He submits that confiscation proceeding was initiated on the report received from officer-in-charge of the Mahuatanr Police Station regarding commission of offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. Thereafter the petitioner had appeared before the concerned authority and after hearing and considering the show cause, the concerned authority has refused to release the vehicle. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section 52 (5) of the Bihar amendment of Indian Forest Act 1927, it was for the petitioner to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that his tractor and trailer was used without his knowledge or connivance and he had taken all necessary precautions against the use of his vehicle for commission of forest offence. Counsel for the respondents also submits that it was never the case of the petitioner before any of the authority that he had no knowledge or he had no connived with the concerned persons for commission of forest offence. He further submits that admittedly the goods were being carried in violation of provisions of Indian Forest Act 1927. He submits that the petitioner has lost in all the three courts and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order, accordingly, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004(2) Eastern Criminal Cases SC 225 in the case of State of M.P. versus S.P. Sales Agencies & Ors. to submit that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that confiscation proceeding and the criminal case are two parallel proceeding and have no bearing upon each other. He further submits that judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been relied upon by the petitioner i.e. reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 21 SC(supra) has no bearing in this case as the same did not relate to interpretation of Bihar amendment of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record this court finds that confiscation proceeding was initiated and the tractors and trailer of the petitioner was seized on the basis of report of police officer in view of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 read with Bihar amendment. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record this court finds that confiscation proceeding was initiated and the tractors and trailer of the petitioner was seized on the basis of report of police officer in view of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 read with Bihar amendment. This court finds that pursuant to the police report, there was reason to believe that forest offence has been committed. Pursuant to the seizure of the aforesaid tractor, trailer and goods, the notices were issued and the petitioner had appeared before the concerned authority and he tried to justify the use of his tractor and trailer by stating that Goverdhan Mahato has purchased coal from Ganpati Coal Traders at Burdwan (West Bengal) which was being carried through another truck and thereafter it was unloaded and being carried through his tractor and trailer. The petitioner before the authorities never made out a case that the tractor and trailer was used without his knowledge or without his connivance by the driver for the purpose of commission of forest offence. Accordingly, this court finds that the onus which was upon the petitioner under Section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act read with Bihar amendment that he was required to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the tractor and trailer were being used without his knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the commission of the forest offence, has not been discharged by the petitioner. Rather no such plea was taken by the petitioner before the officer in terms of discharging his onus under the provisions of Section 52(5) of Indian Forest Act 1927 read with Bihar amendment. 9. Further this court finds that claim of the petitioner that as criminal case under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 was dropped therefore confiscation proceeding should have been dropped is devoid of any merit as from the perusal of the order of acquittal in the criminal case it is apparent that the accused have been given benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported in (2009) 2 JCR 555 (Jhr) which was a case of clean acquittal from criminal charges does not apply to the instant case. Accordingly, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported in (2009) 2 JCR 555 (Jhr) which was a case of clean acquittal from criminal charges does not apply to the instant case. On the same reasoning the judgment reported in (2011) 3 JLJR 36 as well as judgment reported in 2011 (2) JCR 450 (Jhr) do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 840 also does not help the petitioner as in the said case the owner of the truck was bed ridden and accordingly it was held that knowledge or connivance in commission of forest offence could not be attributed to the owner and the owner was not even made an accused in the criminal case. 10. In view of the judgment which has been relied upon by the respondents decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by following ratio of the judgment reported in 1985(4) SCC 573 has held that two proceedings are quite separate and distinct in as much as confiscation proceeding is not dependent upon launching of criminal prosecution. Accordingly, this court finds that the criminal case as well as confiscation proceeding are two distinct proceedings. The onus to show that the petitioner had no knowledge of the connivance and he had taken all necessary and reasonable precautions so that no offence under the Forest act is committed was upon the petitioner which is neither pleaded nor discharged by the petitioner. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been relied upon by the petitioner reported in 1998 (1) PLJR (SC) 21 is not arising out of the provisions of Section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar amendment and the said judgment was arising out of a judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Accordingly, the same has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has no bearing in this case. This court finds that orders passed by the authorities are well reasoned order which do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence this writ petition is dismissed.