JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. I. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel for the Forest Department. 2. In this petition, under Section 397/401/482, read with Section 451 Cr.P.C., preferred by the petitioner Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav, has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.12/2020, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cachar has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, and also the impugned order dated 17.01.2020, passed in O.R. No. DH/5 of 2018-20, DVL 64 of 2019-20 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the Authorized officer has confiscated the vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990, belonging to the petitioner. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “On 12.08.2019, the staff of Lailapur Beat and Assam Forest Protection Force personnel, while performing patrolling duty at Lailapur area on NH54, found one Truck bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990, coming from Mizoram and checked the same and found the driver carrying teak logs without proper mark and with doubtful T.P. being No. 0378746, dated 07-08-2018. Thereafter, the Truck was taken to the Range Forest Office, Dholai and on verification and unloading the Truck, 125 Nos. of teak logs were found there and as per the T.P., it was 180 Nos. and with major discrepancy in the measurement of length and girth of logs. Besides, most of the logs were found unmarked and indistinct in numbering and latter on, the driver was found fleeing away from the same thereafter, having been satisfied that the logs were being carried illegally with doubtful T.P., the same were seized by the seizure officer and issued Form No. 31(A) to 1. M. U. Ahmed of Polasbari Guwahati and 2. Devendra Kumar Yadav of Kohima, asking them to produce legal proof of the origin of forest produce within 30 days and he reported the matter to Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cacher, Silchar vide letter No. DH/13/OR/563, dated 14.08.2019, informing about details of the vehicle and a Detailed Report vide letter dated 19.08.2019. Thereafter, the notice issued to M. U. Ahmed, returned with a report ‘addressed not found’ and a prima facie case has been established against 1. Devendra Kumar Yadav of Kohima 2. Thereafter, the notice issued to M. U. Ahmed, returned with a report ‘addressed not found’ and a prima facie case has been established against 1. Devendra Kumar Yadav of Kohima 2. M. U. Ahmed of Polasbari, Guwahati and 3. Md. Malek Astam of Dhubri Assam. Thereafter, the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cacher, issued Form No. 31(B) to Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav and in his reply he stated that one person of Mizoram called him and talked to him over phone and asked him for transportation of teak logs from Mizoram after proper verification and measurement along with up-to-date T.P. and GST, to which, he agreed and transported the same in his vehicle giving permission to his driver, Md. Malek Astam. But, during transportation, the same was intercepted on 12.08.2018 by forest officials. He also stated that he was completely unaware about the forest rules and regulations and he promised not to repeat such offence in future and requested to release the vehicle on payment of compensation, fine etc. Then the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cacher, issued Form No. 31(C) to Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav to produce the photo-copy of Insurance Certificate and Registration Certificate etc., and he produced the same, then the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cacher, issued Form No. 31(D) to 1. Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav and 2. Md. Malek Astam (driver of the vehicle), and in reply Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav stated the same thing. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 17.01.2020, the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cacher, has confiscated the seized timber and also confiscated the vehicle to the department under Section 49(4) of the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995, as Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav did not exercise reasonable and due precaution against the use of the vehicle for commission of the forest offence and thus, the vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990 is confiscated to the department. Then, being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar and thereafter, hearing both the sides, the learned Court below vide impugned judgment 07.03.2022 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant could not prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle in question was used in commission of forest offence without his knowledge or connivance or abetment as the case may be and therefore, the authorized officer is fully justified in passing the order of confiscation of the seized vehicle, bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990. 4. Being highly dissatisfied and aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav approached this Court, on the ground as follows:- I. The impugned order, dated 17.01.2020, passed by the Authorized Officer is bad in law as it was passed without application of mind and that no forest offence was committed by the vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990, as the teak logs were carried under valid transit pass (T.P) dated 08.08.2018. II. That, due to convenience of the transportation, few logs were cut into pieces and as such, the number of logs increased from 118 to 125. III. That, the petitioner neither received any notices in Form No. 31A, 31B, 31C and 31D nor got any opportunity to adduced evidences for his forest defense. And as such, the confiscation proceeding is illegal and against the provision of Section 49(5)(b)(c) of the Assam Forest Regulation. IV. That, no reason is recorded while arriving at the finding by the respondent No. 2, that a forest offence has been committed. V. That, the petitioner has sent his vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990, to Aizwal on 02.08.2019, with loaded potatoes from Coochbehar (West Bengal) and while returning, the driver of the vehicle loaded with teak logs without informing him and he was totally unaware about the incident and the respondent No. 2 without assigning any reason, arrived at the finding that the petitioner did not take due precaution against the use of the vehicle. VI. VI. That, the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint case before the leaned CJM, Cachar, against the petitioner in connection with the alleged offence for commission of the forest offence and the trial in the said case is yet to commence and the petitioner is innocent till the finding of the Trial Court and as such, the vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner, which is the only source of income of the petitioner and his family and since 19.08.2019, the vehicle is exposing under open sky and getting damaged day by day and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 and judgment and order dated 07.03.2022. 5. Mr. I. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.12/2020 and also the impugned order dated 17.01.2020, passed in O.R. No. DH/6 of 2018-19, DVL 65 of 2019-20 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, Silchar suffers from manifest illegality and impropriety as the same were passed without giving an opportunity to adduce evidence to the petitioner and without issuing notices in Form No. 31A, 31B, 31C and 31D and without complying the provision of Section 49(5)(b)(c) of the Assam Forest Regulation. And as per Section 49(6), the petitioner has prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that vehicle was used without his knowledge and he has taken reasonable and due precaution and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, without considering the aforesaid aspect had affirmed the order dated 17.01.2020, and as such, both the impugned order and judgment are liable to be set aside and quashed and accordingly, it is contended to allow the petition. Mr. Haque also referred following case laws – Abu Bakkar Ali (Md.) Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 1999 (1) GLT 633, and Jogeswar Borah Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2006 (3) GLT 162, to bolster his submissions. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Forest Department submits that both the impugned order and judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. Mr. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2006 (3) GLT 162, to bolster his submissions. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Forest Department submits that both the impugned order and judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. Mr. D. Gogoi, further submits that while confiscating the vehicle under Section 49(4) of the Assam Frontier Regulation, the petitioner was given opportunity by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Silchar for adducing the evidence and the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, failed to exercise reasonable and due precaution against the use of vehicle for commission of forest offence and thereafter, confiscated the same and as such, no interference of the impugned orders is warranted by this Court. And therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also carefully gone through the LCR and the impugned order dated 17.01.2020, passed in O.R. No. DH/6 of 2018-19, DVL 65 of 2019-20 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, Silchar and also the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.12/2020. 8. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990, coming from Mizoram was seized by the Forest Officials of Lailapur Beat and Assam Forest Protection Force personnel, having found the same carrying teak logs. Appeal No.12/2020. 8. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question bearing Registration No. NL-01K-5990, coming from Mizoram was seized by the Forest Officials of Lailapur Beat and Assam Forest Protection Force personnel, having found the same carrying teak logs. It also appears that the description of the said teak logs as provided in the T.P., allegedly issued by the Forest Department, Mizoram is remarkably found to be discrepant in respect of the length and girth of the logs and the number of the logs and some of the markings were indistinct and as such, seizure of the vehicle with the logs, by the seizing officer, appears to be justified and thereafter, notices under Section 31 (A), 31(B), 31(C), and 31(D) were issued in proper Forms and the petitioner had appeared before the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar and accordingly, filed an application to him and thereafter, hearing the petitioner, the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, has confiscated the seized vehicle on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove to his satisfaction that he did exercise reasonable and due precaution against the use of the vehicle for commission of the forest offence. 9. Also, having carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar, I find that the provision of Sub-Section 5 to Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation is duly been followed here in this case. 9. Also, having carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar, I find that the provision of Sub-Section 5 to Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation is duly been followed here in this case. In Sub-Section 5 to Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation, it is provided as under: “(5) No order confiscating any property shall be made under the preceding provisions unless the authorised officer- (a) sends an intimation in the prescribed form about the initiation of the proceeding for confiscation of property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issue a 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 and in cases of motorized boats, vessels, vehicles, trucks, etc., having a registered number to the registered owner thereof; (c) affords to the persons referred to in Clause (b) above a reasonable opportunity of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice, against the proposed confiscation; and (d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons referred to in Clause (b) or (c) above, a reasonable opportunity of being heard on a date or dates to be fixed for the purpose.” 10. Further, from the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.12/2020, reveals that the learned Court below has observed that as required under Section 49(6) of the Assam Frontier Regulation, the petitioner has failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Forest Officials that the vehicle was used in commission of the forest offence i.e., carrying the teak logs without valid documents. And as the appellant failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Forest Officials that the vehicle in question was used in the forest offence without his knowledge, connivance or abetment, the Forest Officials has justified in confiscating the seized vehicle. And as such, the impugned order and judgment cannot be defaulted with. 11. And as the appellant failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Forest Officials that the vehicle in question was used in the forest offence without his knowledge, connivance or abetment, the Forest Officials has justified in confiscating the seized vehicle. And as such, the impugned order and judgment cannot be defaulted with. 11. Thus, having examined the impugned orders in the light of facts and circumstances on the record and also in the light of relevant provisions of law, this Court finds that the same suffers from no illegality or infirmity, requiring any interference of this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Also, I have carefully gone through the case laws, referred by learned counsel for the petitioner and I find that the above mentioned ratio are laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the instant case, the jurisdiction being exercised by this court is the revisional jurisdiction, under Sections 401/397/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is only limited to examination of the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order and as such, I afraid the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases would come into aid of the petitioner. In view of above, I find the submission so advanced by Mr. I. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any substance. As the vehicle has already been confiscated, the question of releasing the same in interim custody does not arise at this stage. 12. As the vehicle has already been confiscated, the question of releasing the same in interim custody does not arise at this stage as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 733 , that:- “The jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., was not available to the Magistrate, once the Authorized Officer initiated confiscation proceedings”. 13. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Kallo Bai, (2017) 14 SCC 502 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- ”Section 15 gives independent power to the authority concerned, but confiscation of the article as mentioned there under, even before the guilt is completely established. 13. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Kallo Bai, (2017) 14 SCC 502 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- ”Section 15 gives independent power to the authority concerned, but confiscation of the article as mentioned there under, even before the guilt is completely established. This power can be exercised by the officer concerned if he is satisfied that the said object was utilized during the commission of a forest offence, and protection is provided for the owners of the vehicle/articles if they are able to prove that they took reasonable care and precaution as envisaged under Section 5 of Section 15 of the ‘Adhiniyam’ and said offence was committed without their knowledge and connivance. It is also held that criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceeding. The two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a distinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceeding it to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing the offence while the object of the prosecution is to punish the offender. The scheme of ‘Adhiniyam’ prescribed an independent procedure for confiscation. The intention of separate proceeding is to provide a deterrent mechanism and to stop further misuse of the vehicle.” 14. Thereafter, in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Sujit Kumar Rana, (AIR) (2004) SC 1851, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that. “Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to the party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of the forest offence as the particular approach in the matter would perpetuate commission of more offence with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not prevented is bound to affect the mother earth and the atmosphere surrounding it”. 15. In view of above, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 17.01.2020, passed in O.R. No. O.R. No. DH/6 of 2018-19, DVL 65 of 2019-20 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, Silchar and the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.12/2020. 16. In the result, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own costs.