JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. III, Una, H.P. on 2.2.2018, whereby the grit (bajri) has been ordered to be confiscated to the State, the petitioner has filed in the instant revision petition. 2. The petitioner is the owner of Truck/Tipper No. HP-72A-1903 and had employed one Vijay Kumar as its driver, who had loaded grit in the truck quantifying 13 metric ton on 31.1.2018. However, when the truck was stopped by the police at Village Jhalera at about 3.00 P.M., it was found that as against permissible laden weight of 25 metric ton, the truck was having laden weight of 32.7 metric ton. 3. The police impounded the truck and after completing the proceedings under Rule 57(2) of the H.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971, (in short, the Rules) the police presented the challan before the learned Magistrate, which came up for consideration on 2.2.2018. The petitioner admitted his guilt voluntarily and agreed to pay compounding fee Rs. 15,000/-, which was accordingly paid by him on the same day. 4. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, has vehemently argued that after having paid compounding fee of Rs. 15,000/-, the grit loaded in the truck could not have been ordered to be confiscated to the State by the learned Magistrate as there is no provision in the Rules for confiscation of the material or else this would amount to "double jeopardy". On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, would contend that the confiscation has been ordered in order to stop menace of illegal transportation of minerals. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. Rule 57 of the Rules reads as under:- 57. RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSPORT OF THE MINERAL: (1) The holder of a mining lease or mining permit or a person authorised by him in this behalf shall issue a pass in Form 'M' [duly countersigned by the concerned Mining Officer/General Manager, District Industries Centre or any other officer authorised in this behalf to every person carrying a consignment of minor mineral by a vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport. (2) No person shall carry within Himachal Pradesh a minor mineral by a vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport, excepting railway, without carrying a pass in Form 'M issued under sub-rule (1). (3) Every person carrying any minor mineral shall on demand by any officer of the State Government authorised in this behalf, show the said pass to such officer and allow him to verify the correctness of the particulars of the pass with reference to the quantity of the minor mineral. (4) The State Government may establish a check post for any area included in any mining lease or permit, and when a check post is so established, public notice shall be given of this fact, by publication in the Gazette and in such other manner as may be considered suitable by the State Government. (5) No person shall transport a minor mineral to which these rules apply from such area without first presenting the mineral at the check post fixed for that area for purposes of verification of the weighment or measurement of the quantity of the mineral. (6) Any person found to have contravened any provision of sub-rule (2), (3) or (5) above shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both. 7. A conjoint reading of sub-rule (2) read with sub-rule (6) of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that no person can carry within Himachal Pradesh a minor mineral by a vehicle or any other mode of transport, except railway, unless he has a pass in Form 'M' issued under sub-rule (1) of the Rules. In case, any person is found to have contravened any provisions of sub-rules (2), (3) or (5) above, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both. 8. The aforesaid Rule does not make any reference to confiscation either of the vehicle or of the mineral being illegally transported, but then moot question is whether the confiscation can be held to be a punishment or not. 9. Evidently, the matter came to be closed by the learned trial Magistrate after the petitioner admitted his guilt voluntarily and paid compounding fees of Rs. 9. Evidently, the matter came to be closed by the learned trial Magistrate after the petitioner admitted his guilt voluntarily and paid compounding fees of Rs. 15,000/-. On such amount being deposited, obliviously, the prosecution could not have continued as the matter stood compounded. What is meant by the word 'compound'? Is it different and if so, how different it is from the other processes like compromise, settlement, withdrawal etc. It will be apposite straight away to refer to the dictionary. The dictionary gives interesting development of the concept of the expression 'compound'. I extract below the meaning of the word in the New Oxford Dictionary of English. As a verb transitive, inter alia, it has meanings, which alone are relevant. "2. make (something bad) worse; intensify the negative aspects of; prisoners' lack of contact with the outside world compounds their problems. 3. Law forbear from prosecuting (a felony) in exchange for money or other consideration. Settle (a debt or other matter) in this way; he compounded the case with the defendant for a cash payment. The following note appears thereafter: USAGE: The sense of the verb compound which means 'make (something bad) worse', as in this compounds their problems, has an interesting history. It arose through a misinterpretation of the phrase compound a felony, which strictly speaking, means 'forbear from prosecution a felony in exchange for money or other consideration: The 'incorrect' sense has become the usual one in legal uses and, by extension, in general senses too, and is now accepted as part of standard English. 10. The word has the meaning "forbear from prosecuting a crime in exchange of money or other consideration". This meaning of the term, because of its association with felony, appears to have led to use of expression in an incorrect sense as indicated in (2) above. Be that as it may, what is relevant for our purpose is that compounding is forbearance from prosecuting a crime. It may be for material consideration, it may be for other considerations. Receipt of money or compensation may be one consideration. Piety and forgiveness may be the other. Acceptance of the explanation/justification may be yet another. For the purpose for which we are concerned, we are interested not on the motivations that prompted a person to forbear from prosecution, we are concerned only with the act of forbearance. Receipt of money or compensation may be one consideration. Piety and forgiveness may be the other. Acceptance of the explanation/justification may be yet another. For the purpose for which we are concerned, we are interested not on the motivations that prompted a person to forbear from prosecution, we are concerned only with the act of forbearance. Considerations relevant, irrelevant, sublime or coarse may prompt a victim to forbear from prosecution. The Court is concerned only with the willingness of the victim to forbear from prosecution. If he is willing and his decision to forbear is genuine and voluntary the composition has to be accepted when the offence is compoundable without permission." 11. The word "compound" means "settle by mutual concession". To 'compound' a debt, is to abate a part on receiving the residue (see Haskins v. New Comb. 2 Johns 408; Pennell v. Rhodes. The word 'compound' as used in S. 320 of the Code means "to forbear from prosecution for consideration or any private motive." It is ridiculous to say that for the purpose of compounding under S. 68 there is an offence and for the purpose of prosecution, there is a different offence. Once the offence is lawfully compounded, nothing survives to be proceeded with, whether a prosecution has already been launched or not. 12. Compounding crime : Compounding crime consists of the receipt of some property or other consideration in return for an agreement not to prosecute or inform on one who has committed a crime. There are three elements to this offence at common law, and under the typical compounding statute: (1) the agreement not to prosecute; (2) knowledge of the actual commission of a crime; and (3) the receipt of some consideration. The offence committed by a person who, having been directly injured by a felony, agrees with the criminal that he will not prosecute him, on condition of the latter's making reparation, or on receipt of a reward or bribe not to prosecute. The offence of taking a reward for forbearing to prosecute a felony; as where a party robbed takes his goods again, or other amends, upon an agreement not to prosecute. 13. In fact, the argument raised therein was in the light of the stand of the Divisional Forest Officer that he has no authority to compound the offence, as the case is pending consideration before the court. 13. In fact, the argument raised therein was in the light of the stand of the Divisional Forest Officer that he has no authority to compound the offence, as the case is pending consideration before the court. Importantly, it was held that "once the offence is lawfully compounded, nothing survives to be proceed with, whether a prosecution has already been launched or not." In para 9, it was directed that in case the offence is compounded, the Officer compounding the offence has to give a report to the Court where the case is pending and on such report being received the case is to be closed and the accused if he is in custody, is to be discharged. Therefore, the above decision are unanimous in one point that once the offence is compounded, nothing survives against the accused and no proceedings can therefore be continued once the case is closed. 14. Now, adverting to the question as to whether confiscation is a punishment or not, needs to be noted that power of confiscation is always independent of any proceedings of prosecution of the offence committed. 15. Once the offence of illegal transportation of minerals is admitted by the person and in furtherance thereof, the amount of fine is also deposited, then obviously, the person cannot lay any claim to the material or else, the results would be disastrous. If the interpretation of the petitioner is accepted that would mean that a person could pay for the illegal act and get away by the same. 16. In Biswanath Bhattacharya vs. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 392 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with forfeiture under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1976. Therein, a contention was raised that forfeiture is a penalty and, therefore, it could not have been taken recourse to without a conviction. The stand of Union of India was that the forfeiture contemplated under the said Act was not a penalty, but only deprivation of property to a legislatively identified class of persons-in the event of their inability to explain to the satisfaction of the State that they had legitimate sources of funds for the acquisition of such property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the forfeiture was not violative of Article 20 of the Constitution and observed as under:- 39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the forfeiture was not violative of Article 20 of the Constitution and observed as under:- 39. If a subject acquires property by means which are not legally approved, sovereign would be perfectly justified to deprive such persons of the enjoyment of such ill-gotten wealth. There is a public interest in ensuring that persons who cannot establish that they have legitimate sources to acquire the assets held by them do not enjoy such wealth. Such a deprivation, in our opinion, would certainly be consistent with the requirement of Article 300A and 14 of the Constitution which prevent the State from arbitrarily depriving a subject of his property. 17. Similar reiteration of law can be found in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2016) 3 SCC 183 wherein after relying upon the aforesaid judgment, it was further held that confiscation is not a punishment if it is found that the property in question has been acquired illegally and if any money or property or both have been acquired by means of an offence. 18. The ratio of the judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case as the petitioner after acknowledging his guilt had deposited the fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- to save himself from the gallows and, thus, cannot lay claim to the grit being illegally transported or even lay claim to that portion of the grit that was being legally transported. 19. As per the provisions of the Rules (supra), minor mineral removed from the quarries illegally admittedly is the property of the State and the same cannot be removed and used without payment of the requisite fees. 20. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property in question, which is liable to be confiscated, is uncalled for, as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the rules. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the minerals which if not protected are surely to affect the mother earth. Even otherwise, the object of such confiscation is to stop menace of illegal transportation of minerals which have attained gigantic proportion. 21. Once, it is held that confiscation of property in such cases is not a punishment, then article 20 of the Constitution of India is also not violated. 22. Even otherwise, the object of such confiscation is to stop menace of illegal transportation of minerals which have attained gigantic proportion. 21. Once, it is held that confiscation of property in such cases is not a punishment, then article 20 of the Constitution of India is also not violated. 22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would however argue that only a portion of the grit being transported was in excess of the prescribed limit and, therefore, the grit which falls within the permissible limit ought to have been returned to the petitioner. 23. I am afraid that even this contention is simply fallacious and has to be rejected. Once, the petitioner admits his guilt and even pays the fine, he cannot thereafter turn around to lay claim on that part of the property, which according to him, was being legally transported because this would only encourage illegal transportation of the minerals, where every transporter would try and take chance of illegally transporting the minerals and in case apprehended would pay the fine of the illegal minerals. This would in turn only encourage illegal transportation of the minerals and lay claim to that quantity of the minerals for which he had a valid permit. 24. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.