JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. In terms of the order passed by this court dated 11.04.2022, the instructions have been filed, the same are taken on record. 3. The present petition challenges the order dated 25.08.2021 whereby the order of confiscation was passed against the petitioner in respect of his vehicle being Truck No. UP75 M-9306 as well as the order dated 21.02.2022 whereby the appeal preferred under section 52(B) of the Indian Forest Act was dismissed. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the Truck bearing No. UP 75 M-9306, which was purchased by the petitioner after availing a loan. The petitioner gives his truck on hire for transporting the goods from one place to another. On 05.06.2021, the truck of the petitioner was seized while it was transporting 45 logs of Sagwan. As the forest officer was of the view that the goods being transported on the vehicle were illegally transported and an order of seizure came to be passed on 05.06.2021 (Annexure no.4). 5. A perusal of the said seizure report given to the Magistrate indicates that on 05.06.2021 at about 3.00 am while checking, 45 logs of Sagwan wood were being transported illegally by loading the same on the vehicle in question. It was also recorded that the inquiry is going on. The said seizure report was also sent to the authorized officer under section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act. It is also informed at the bar that a case of criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Forest Act is pending before the magistrate and the same is not proceeding any further. The petitioner moved an application stating that he was a mere transporter and nothing was recorded as against the petitioner so as to implicate him in the offence in question, as such he requested that the Truck in question be released in his favour. On the said application, an order came to be passed on 25.02.2021 whereby the authorized officer exercising his power under section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act (as amended in the State of U.P.) proceeded to confiscate the truck in question. The petitioner preferred an appeal under section 52-B of the Indian Forest Act (as amended in the State of U.P.), which too has been dismissed. The petitioner preferred an appeal under section 52-B of the Indian Forest Act (as amended in the State of U.P.), which too has been dismissed. The said orders are under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, as amended in the State of U.P., confers the power on the forest officer or a police officer to stop and detain any vehicle and section 52(3) provides that after making a seizure report, the same shall be sent to the magistrate concerned. Section 52 is quoted herein below: Section 52 : (i) in sub-section (1), for the words "vehicles or cattle", substitute the words "vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains or other articles"; (ii) for sub-section (2), substitute the following sub-section, namely:— "(2) Any Forest-officer or Police-officer may, if he has reason to believe that a boat or vehicle of which a forest-offence has been, or is being, committed, require the driver or other person in charge of such boat or vehicle to stop it, and he may detain such boat or vehicle for such reasonable time as is necessary to examine the contents in such boat or vehicle and to inspect the records relating to the goods transported so as to ascertain the claims, if any, of the driver or other person in charge of such boat or vehicle regarding the ownership and legal origin of the forest-produce in question. (3) 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, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made, and if the seizure is in respect of forest-produce which is the property of the State Government, shall also make a report to the authorized officer." 7. Section 52-A of the Act prescribes the procedure after seizure and is as under : "52A. Section 52-A of the Act prescribes the procedure after seizure and is as under : "52A. Procedure on seizure-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force where a forest-offence is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest-produce, which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under subsection (1) of section 52 shall without unreasonable delay, produce it together with all the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles used in committing the offence, before an officer, not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, authorized by the State Government in this behalf, who may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order in writing with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property, and in case of tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles, may also confiscate them. (2) The authorized officer shall, without any undue delay, forward a copy of the order made under sub-section (1) to his official superior. (3) Where the authorized officer passing an order under subsection (1) is of the opinion that the property is subject to speedy and natural decay he may order the property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction and may deal with the proceeds as he would have dealt with such property if it had not been sold and shall report about every such sale to his official superior. (4) No order under sub-section (1) shall be made without giving notice, in writing, to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorized officer to have some interest in such property: Provided that in an order confiscating a vehicle, when the offender is not traceable, a notice in writing to the registered owner thereof and considering his objections if any will suffice. (5) No order of confiscation of any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article shall be made if any person referred to in sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that any such tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, as the case may be, and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for the commission of the forest offence. 8. Section 52-B provides for an appeal against the order passed under section 52-A of the Act. 9. I have perused the order passed under section 52 of the Act, which is contained in Annexure 4, which confers the power of detention of a vehicle after recording the 'reasons to believe' and for such time as is necessary to examine the contents as contained in the vehicle and to ascertain the ownership of the vehicle and legal origin of the forest produce in question. The action under section 52-A is specified after the valid order of the detention is passed. 10. In the present case, as is clear from the perusal of the Annexure no.4, which is the detention order, the same does not disclose any 'reasons to believe' recorded so as to implicate the Truck in question with the offence alleged against the owner of the goods. The same merely mentions that the goods being 45 logs of Sagwan were being transported and were apprehended. The 'Reasons to believe' as prescribed under section 52 are necessary to be recorded as the order of detention/seizure is expropriatory in nature and intends to deprive the owner of his property. 11. Section 52-A of the Act provides for steps to be taken after the order of seizure and for producing the sized goods before the Divisional Forest Officer, who is authorized to pass an order after recording the reasons with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property and further authorizes the concerned officer in case of vehicles to confiscate them. 12. 12. A plain reading of the Section 52-A makes it clear that the power conferred upon the Divisional Forest Officer to take action for confiscation only on being satisfied that a 'forest offence' is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest produce, which is the property of the State Government. The said condition precedent prescribes that prior to the passing of the confiscating order, it is essential to come to a conclusion that a 'forest offence' is believed to have been committed. 13. Admittedly, proceedings with regard to the allegation of 'forest offence' have not been adjudicated so far. The petitioner had specifically raised a plea that he had given the vehicle in question for hire and had no concern with the goods being transported therein. The order of the authorized officer confiscating the goods does not record that the vehicle in question was used in the 'forest offence', which according to the prescribed authority was being committed in respect of a forest produce. The order merely records that the goods in question, being transported, were the government property. He further erred in disbelieving the version of the petitioner that he had given the truck on hire merely because the petitioner did not disclose as to who had booked the truck in question. 14. Considering the order passed under section 52-A of the Act confiscating the Truck coupled with the fact that the proceedings for adjudicating the 'forest offence' have not culminated so far, clearly the divisional forest officer has erred in passing the order of confiscation. The divisional forest officer in terms of the mandate of section 52-A of the Act was clearly empowered to make an order with regard to the custody, possession, delivery and disposal of such property in addition or in alternate to the power of confiscation. No reasons have been recorded as to why the divisional forest officer considered it necessary to confiscate the goods when the trial regarding 'forest offence' is yet to have started. The appellate authority is equally silent as to why the order of confiscation came to be passed when the proceedings for establishing 'forest offence' are pending. The appellate authority has in fact recorded that the appellant failed to establish that he was not involved in the offence. The appellate authority is equally silent as to why the order of confiscation came to be passed when the proceedings for establishing 'forest offence' are pending. The appellate authority has in fact recorded that the appellant failed to establish that he was not involved in the offence. The said finding clearly is erroneous inasmuch as the question of the offence having been committed is yet to be established. 15. The instructions given by the Standing Counsel provide for the manner in which the orders are supposed to be passed. In any event of the matter, it is well established that an order passed cannot be supplemented by giving any reasons which are absent in the orders passed and impugned herein. 16. Thus, in totality and for the reasons recorded, I am of the view that the order impugned dated 25.08.2021 and the order dated 21.02.2022 are liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, the orders dated 25.08.2021 are set aside. It is directed that the truck in question, which is in the custody, being the Truck No.UP75 M-9306 shall be released forthwith to the petitioner on his furnishing proof of ownership and giving an undertaking to produce the truck as and when required and with condition that the petitioner shall not sell the truck in question without obtaining adequate permission from the divisional forest officer in accordance with law. The question of confiscation shall be considered by the concerned officer only after the 'forest offence' in question is decided by the competent court after trial. 18. The writ petition stands allowed.