JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the following orders :- a. Order dated 28.05.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer to the extent it relates to confiscation of truck of the petitioner bearing number BR-01-H/8115 which has been confiscated in Confiscation Case No.112 of 2000 under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by its Bihar amendment. b. Appellate order dated 12.01.2001 (Annexure-8) passed in by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan by which the said authority has confirmed the order of the Divisional Forest Officer. c. Revisional order dated 26.09.2002 (Annexure-9) passed in Revision case No.(C ) 10 of 2002 by which the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi confirmed the order of Divisional Forest Officer as well as that of Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. 3. The counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged these orders on two grounds:- a. The Forester, who had seized the vehicle, had no jurisdiction for seizure in view of Section 52(D) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended vide Bihar Amendment, and accordingly, the entire proceeding right from seizure of the vehicle is wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly the order dated 28.05.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer which has been confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority are not sustainable in law. For this the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment passed in WPC No 4125 of 2001 as contained in Annexure 10 of the writ petition. b. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission the counsel of the petitioner submits that otherwise also the authorities ought to have released the vehicle of the petitioner as the commercial vehicle of the petitioner was given on hire and was allegedly used for committing forest offence under the said Act without his knowledge or connivance and necessary precautions were taken against use of vehicle for commission of forest offence. 4. The counsel for the petitioner on facts submits as under :- a. The vehicle of the petitioner was a commercial vehicle was given on hire from time to time. b. One Shiv Shankar Haldhar approached the petitioner and took his truck on hire for the period from 25.09.2000 to 30.09.2000 in connection with construction work in his native village. 4. The counsel for the petitioner on facts submits as under :- a. The vehicle of the petitioner was a commercial vehicle was given on hire from time to time. b. One Shiv Shankar Haldhar approached the petitioner and took his truck on hire for the period from 25.09.2000 to 30.09.2000 in connection with construction work in his native village. In support of this statement the petitioner has annexed Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is an affidavit dated 25.9.2000 mentioning inter alia about taking the vehicle on hire with an undertaking that the said truck will not be used for and illegal act contrary to law. c. When the truck was not returned and upon an enquiry the petitioner came to know that a case has been registered under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. d. Referring to Annexure-3 i.e. the prosecution report and the seizure list, it is submitted that twenty five pieces of Siris wood were seized alongwith the vehicle and a seizure list was prepared. The vehicle and the goods were seized by the Forester. e. Upon enquiry, the petitioner came to know that Shiv Shankar Haldhar had filed a petition before the Circle Officer, Nimdih, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa mentioning that there are two Siris trees standing in his Rayati land and so he sought permission to cut the same and take machineries for the said purpose to his land at Chandil. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the order dated 16.02.2000 passed by the Circle Officer, Nimdih giving permission to Shiv Shankar Haldhar to cut the trees. f. The petitioner submits that thereafter Mukhiya of Nemi village Gram Panchayat issued the certificate dated 28.09.2000 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition to the effect that the said trees were cut and loaded by Shiv Shankar Haldhar on truck of the petitioner on 28.09.2000. g. The petitioner duly appeared in the confiscation proceeding and filed his show-cause stating that the vehicle was in possession of Shiv Shankar Haldhar who had taken it for hire for transportation of construction material, but the vehicle of the petitioner was used by Shiv Shankar Haldhar for transportation of the forest produce. g. The petitioner duly appeared in the confiscation proceeding and filed his show-cause stating that the vehicle was in possession of Shiv Shankar Haldhar who had taken it for hire for transportation of construction material, but the vehicle of the petitioner was used by Shiv Shankar Haldhar for transportation of the forest produce. h. Vide order dated 28.05.2001 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa rejected the reply of the petitioner and held that although the letter of the Circle Officer as well as Mukhiya was produced but the petitioner could not show any transit permit for transportation of the forest produce and accordingly, the said authority held that the truck was used in violation of Sections 41 and 42 of the aforesaid Act for transporting the timber without valid document and thereupon the order of confiscation under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Bihar Amendment was passed. i. The petitioner filed appeal against this order as contained in Annexure-6. The appellate authority vide the impugned order also dismissed the appeal by holding that the vehicle of the petitioner had violated Sections 41 and 42 of the aforesaid Act. j. Being aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner filed revision which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.09.2002 by the respondent No.4. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has lost in three forums and the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law. It has been submitted that the Revisional Authority has recorded that the petitioner had taken a specific stand that the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the involvement of truck in commission of offence but the petitioner failed to prove the same and accordingly the vehicle was rightly confiscated under Section 52(5) of the aforesaid Act. By referring to paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit the counsel for the petitioner submits that a Circle Officer or the Mukhiya is not the competent authority to permit transportation of forest produce and he further submits that since the forest produce was being transported without authority/transit permit which was in violation of Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, therefore, the authorities below have rightly passed the impugned orders. He also submits that mere absence of the truck owner at the time of seizure of the truck does not absolve him from his involvement in the commission of the forest offence and submits that the writ petitioner did not make any complaint before any authority that his truck was taken away by his driver without his consent from 25.09.2000 to 30.09.2000. The counsel further submits that so far as the jurisdictional issue is concerned the seizure has been done under Section 52(1) of the Act and not under Section 52D of the said Act and submits that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition has no applicability to the facts of this case as the same was decided under different facts and circumstances. He further submits that neither the driver appeared before the authority nor Shiv Shankar Haldhar appeared before the authority to claim the logs of the tree which proves the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence under the Act. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record the writ petition is fit to be partly allowed on ground no. (b) raised by the writ petitioner and ground no. (a) is fit to be decided against the writ petitioner in view of following facts and reasons:- a. From the records of the case, I find that the seizure has been done under Section 52(1) of the Indian Forest Act read with Bihar Amendment and not under Section 52-D, accordingly, the Forester who had seized the goods and the vehicle was duly empowered to do so. b. The relevant provisions are as under:- The Indian Forest Act has been amended by the Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1989, whereby, in place of Section 52, Sections 52 to 52-D have been inserted in the Act. Hereinafter Sections 52 and 52-D as inserted by the above Bihar Amendment Act will be referred to if and when such reference is required. Sections 52 and 52-D deal with seizure Both these Sections, insofar as they are relevant, are reproduced below: 52. Hereinafter Sections 52 and 52-D as inserted by the above Bihar Amendment Act will be referred to if and when such reference is required. Sections 52 and 52-D deal with seizure Both these Sections, insofar as they are relevant, are reproduced below: 52. Seizure and its procedure for the property liable for confiscation.-(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, chains or any other article used in committing any such offence, may, be sized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. (2) Every Officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an office not below the rank of the Divisional Forest Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as authorised officer) or where, it is, having regard to quantity of bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce that property seized before the authorised officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure of the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made: Provided that when the forest produce with respect to which offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his immediate superior. (3) Subject to Sub-Section (5), where the authorised officer upon and production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded, confiscate forest produce so seized together with all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence. The Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence concerned may, on the oasis of the report of the authorised confiscating officer, cancel the registration of a vehicle used in committing the offence, the licence of the vehicle driver and the licence of the arms. The Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence concerned may, on the oasis of the report of the authorised confiscating officer, cancel the registration of a vehicle used in committing the offence, the licence of the vehicle driver and the licence of the arms. A copy of order confiscation shall be forwarded without undue delay to the conservators of the forest circle in which the forest produce, as the case may be, has been seized 52. D. Power of entry, inspection, search and seizure.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force may Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Officer of Forest or any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector may, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that any forest offence has been committed in contravention of this Act, enter upon, inspect and search any place premises, appurtenances thereto land, vehicle or boat and seize any illegal forest produce and all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence. 5. Forest Produce" has been defined in Section 2(4) of the Act, which reads as under: 2(4). forest produce" includes,: (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say: timber, charcoal, caouthouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds (kuth) and myrabolams; and (b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say: (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce no hereinbefore mentioned of trees; (ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss) and all parts or produce of such plants; (iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax and all other parts or produce of animals; and (iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including limestone, laterite. minerals, oils and all products of mines or quarries); Forest Offence" has also been defined in Section 2(3) of the Act, which is also reproduced below: 2 (3). forest offence" means an offence punishable under this Act or under any rule made thereunder. c. The point of jurisdiction involved in this case has been decided by the full Bench Judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court vide judgment reported in 1998(3) PLJR 429 (FB). forest offence" means an offence punishable under this Act or under any rule made thereunder. c. The point of jurisdiction involved in this case has been decided by the full Bench Judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court vide judgment reported in 1998(3) PLJR 429 (FB). The following two issued were decided :- “(i) Whether only Ranger and Officers above the rank of Ranger are entitled to search and seize forest produce, vehicle, etc. or even the Forester is competent to seize them under Indian Forest Act as amended "by the Bihar Amendment Act; and (ii) Whether the entire criminal case is bound to fail and consequently the confiscation proceeding is also not maintainable if the seizure is illegal?” The said issues have been answered in the following manner:- With regards to issue no (i) it has been decided as under. “8. Taking possession of another's property after dispossessing him is seizure. Such a power can be exercised both under Sections 52 and 52-D Although both these Sections empower the concerned officer to seize forest produce, vehicle etc. but power under Section 52-D is much wider than the power conferred by Section 52. Under Section 52-D, the Range Officer has the power to enter upon, inspect and search any place, premises, appurtenances thereto, land, vehicle or boat and seize the illegal forest produce along with vehicle, etc. But such wide power cannot be exercised under Section 52, whereunder the power is confined to seizure only. Both Sections 52 and 52-D visualise two different situations. The area of operation and the purpose for which they have been enacted are different. Section 52 empowers the Forest Officer or Police Officer to seize any forest produce, "if there is reason to believe" that a forest offence in respect thereof has been committed This Section is confined to a case where a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce. It does not deal with any other forest offence. Section 52 will cover a case where the Forest Officer finds that forest produce has been or is being removed in contravention of law or where theft of forest produce has been or is being committed. In such a case, he can seize, the forest produce together with vehicle, etc. It does not deal with any other forest offence. Section 52 will cover a case where the Forest Officer finds that forest produce has been or is being removed in contravention of law or where theft of forest produce has been or is being committed. In such a case, he can seize, the forest produce together with vehicle, etc. But it seizure of forest produce without inspection and/or search is not possible, power of seizure under Section 52 cannot be availed of because it does not authorise inspection and search On the other hand Section 52-D deals with "any forest offence" Such an offence may or may not be in respect of the forest produce Under this section, any Forest Officer nor below the rank of Range Officer or any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector can, "if he had reasonable ground to believe" that forest offence has been committed, exercise any of the powers mentioned therein including the power of seizure. Section 52-D will cover a case where the Ranger Officer receives an information or gathers knowledge about commission of forest offence which provides reasonable ground to believe that such an offence has been committed. In such a case, he can exercise all or any of the powers conferred by the said section. 9. "Forest Officer" has been defined in Section 2(2) of the Act which is as under: 2(2). Forest Officer" means any person whom the State Government or any officer empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may appoint to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act or to do anything required by this Act or any rule made thereunder to be done by a Forest Officer. According to the above provision, any officer appointed by the State Government to "carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act or to do anything required by this Act, or any rule made thereunder" is a Forest Officer. It is not disputed that Forester, who seized petitioner's forest produce and the vehicle, is one of such officers who has been so appointed by the State Government as a Forest Officer in exercise of the power conferred on it by Section 2(2) of the Act. It is not disputed that Forester, who seized petitioner's forest produce and the vehicle, is one of such officers who has been so appointed by the State Government as a Forest Officer in exercise of the power conferred on it by Section 2(2) of the Act. The latest notification issued by the State Government empowering the various officers including the Forester to act as Forest Officer is dated July 1, 1995 a copy of which has been placed before us by Sri P.D. Agrawal, Government Advocate and the same has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Forester, therefore, being a Forest Officer, is empowered to seize the forest produce along with the vehicle in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 52, provided he has "reason to believe" that a forest offence in respect of forest produce has been committed. However, the position would be different if seizure is made under Section 52-D whereunder an officer not below the rank of Ranger Officer or the Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector is empowered to seize. Although, the Forester is a Forest Officer in view of the Government notification mentioned above, but he is not a Ranger Officer. He, therefore, cannot exercise any power mentioned in Section 52-D although he can seize the forest produce, vehicle etc. under Section 52. provided the condition precedent laid down therein exists. 10. In Vishnu Sharma v.. The State of Bihar, (supra), the seizure of the timber and the vehicle in which it was being carried by the Forester was declared invalid on the ground that Section 52 cannot apply to such a case and only Section 52-D will be applicable to it. It is not possible to agree with the above view. Under Section 52, a Forester can seize the truck and the forest produce if he has reason to believe that a forest offence in respect of forest produce has been committed. Timber is admittedly a forest produce and its seizure along with the truck in which it was being carried by the Forester cannot be held to be invalid in the absence of any finding about the non-existence of the condition precedent laid down in Section 52. No such finding was recorded by the Bench. Timber is admittedly a forest produce and its seizure along with the truck in which it was being carried by the Forester cannot be held to be invalid in the absence of any finding about the non-existence of the condition precedent laid down in Section 52. No such finding was recorded by the Bench. The decision of this Court in Vishnu Sharma v. The State of Bihar and Anr., (supra), is therefore, overruled. 11. Jumuna Prasad Singh Anr. v. State of Bihar Ors. (supra), where the seizure of sandalwoods, which was being transported without transit permit by the Forester (Beat) Officer was upheld under Section 52 of the Act, represents the correct position.” d. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-9 of the writ petition has no applicability to the facts of this case as the seizure in the said case was under Section 52-D of the Act and the seizure in the instant case is under Section 52(1) of the Act. The case of the petitioner is covered by aforesaid full Bench judgment on the point of jurisdiction. The writ petitioner has not made out any case on facts that the seizure was under Section 52D of the Act. The facts of this case clearly shows that the seizure in the instant case was under Section 52(1) of the Act and accordingly the forester who had seized the vehicle with the logs had acted as per the authority conferred upon him under law. The point of jurisdiction is thus answered against the writ petitioner. e. So far as the other point is concerned, the Revisional Authority has recorded a specific finding that it is true that Shiv Shankar Haldhar had taken permission from Circle Officer to cut two Siris trees standing on his land but said Shiv Shankar Haldhar has not appeared before the Court to claim the seized logs and accordingly it has been held that the permission granted by the Circle Officer is of no use. On this ground the Revisional Authority has held that this goes to show that the logs does not belong to Shiv Shankar Haldhar. On this ground the Revisional Authority has held that this goes to show that the logs does not belong to Shiv Shankar Haldhar. While recording this finding the Revisional Authority has not at all considered that the Mukhiya of Nemi village Gram Panchayat issued the certificate dated 28.09.2000 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition to the effect that the said trees were cut and loaded by Shiv Shankar Haldhar on truck on 28.09.2000 in the vehicle of the petitioner. This document was produced before the concerned authority pursuant to the show-cause as is apparent from the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Non-consideration of this material document/fact makes the order passed by the Revisional Authority perverse. Moreover, no adverse inference could have been drawn against the petitioner as has been done by the Revisional Authority on account of non appearance of Shiv Shankar Haldhar to whom the vehicle was given on hire. f. The Revisional Authority had drawn adverse inference against the petitioner on account of non-appearance of the driver pursuant to the show-cause notice although no adverse inference could have been drawn against the petitioner on account of non-appearance of the driver. g. The Revisional Authority further holds that even if it is assumed that the Circle Officer had granted permission to Shiv Shankar Haldhar, then also there has been a violation of Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act and the rules framed thereunder and in absence of the permit, the goods alongwith the truck has rightly been seized. The goods were found in the truck of the petitioner and the truck was being driven by the driver of the petitioner. The said authority held that the vehicle of the petitioner is involved in the offence in view of Section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Revisional Authority mainly rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground that Shiv Shankar Haldhar never claimed the logs and it was for the petitioner to prove that he had no knowledge or connivance and necessary precautions were taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of forest offence and thereafter dismissed the revision application. The Revisional Authority mainly rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground that Shiv Shankar Haldhar never claimed the logs and it was for the petitioner to prove that he had no knowledge or connivance and necessary precautions were taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of forest offence and thereafter dismissed the revision application. This Court is of the considered view that the records of the case particularly Annexure-1( affidavit of Shiv Shankar Haldhar regarding the vehicle being taken on hire ) , 4( permission to cut the trees granted by the circle officer) and 5 (certificate issued by Mukhia) which are admitted facts on record are enough to show that the petitioner had no knowledge or connivance and necessary precautions were taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of forest offence and the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned order has totally ignored the Annexure-5 which is a certificate granted by the Mukhia that the trees were cut and loaded in the truck of the petitioner by Shiv Shankar Haldhar to whom the truck was given on hire. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not disputed the issuance of these documents but have taken a stand that the Circle Officer or the Mukhia were not the competent authority to permit transportation of the forest produce. In this regard it is worth noticing that the said two persons did not grant permission to transport the forest produce but had granted permission to cut the trees standing on the land belonging to Shiv Shankar Haldhar and had certified the cutting of the trees and loading of the same in the truck by Shiv Shankar Haldhar. h. Even the order passed by the appellate authority is perverse on account of non-consideration of the material facts including the certificate dated 28.09.2000 issued by the Mukhia as contained in annexure 5 to the writ petition to the effect that the said trees were cut and loaded on truck on 28.09.2000 in the vehicle by Shiv Shankar Haldhar. i. The order passed by the original authority as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition is also perverse as the same is based on drawing adverse inference on account of non-appearance of the driver of the truck and not appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of Section 52(5) of the Said Act. 7. i. The order passed by the original authority as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition is also perverse as the same is based on drawing adverse inference on account of non-appearance of the driver of the truck and not appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of Section 52(5) of the Said Act. 7. From the facts of the case I find that the petitioner had given the truck on hire to Shiv Shankar Haldhar on 25.9.2000 for the period from 25.9.2000 to 30.9.2000 who was yet to cut the trees and only subsequent thereto he was supposed to obtain permit for transportation of the logs. The logs were loaded in the truck of the petitioner for transportation on 28.9.2000 by Shiv Shankar Haldhar as per the certificate of the mukhia as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thus, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have knowledge or connivance in any manner whatsoever regarding commission of forest offence and the petitioner had taken enough precaution as on the date the vehicle was taken on hire, Shiv Shankar Haldhar had obtained permission from the Circle Officer to cut the trees standing on his land and to carry the machinery for cutting the trees. 8. The writ petition stands allowed only on ground no. (b). 9. The impugned order dated 28.05.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer to the extent it relates to confiscation of truck of the petitioner bearing number BR-01-H/8115 which has been confiscated in Confiscation Case No.112 of 2000; Appellate order dated 12.01.2001 (Annexure-8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan; and the Revisional order dated 26.09.2002 (Annexure-9) passed in Revision case No.(C) 10 of 2002 by which the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi are hereby set-aside. 10. The respondent authorities are directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.