JUDGMENT : The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder following prayers have been made :- (i) For issuance of an appropriate for Writ (s)/order(s)/direction(s) setting aside the order dated 25.4.12 passed by learned Revisional officer- cum- Addl. Chief Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Petition No.2/Forest Muk. (C) 69/2010. (ii) For issuance of further Writ (s)/order(s)/direction (s) setting aside the order dated 19.11.08 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in confiscation Appeal No. 28 of 2008. (iii) For issuance of further appropriate Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for setting aside the order dated 3.4.08 passed by divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Hazaribagh in confiscation case no. 28 of 2006 arising out of G.Case No. 430 of 2006 confiscating the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Tractor No. JH-02G/7803 and Tailor No. JH-02G/7804. (iv) For issuance of further appropriate Writ (s)/order(s)/direction(s) upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release the vehicle and No.JH- 02G/7803 and Tailor No. JH-02G/7804 in favour of the petitioner who is owner of the said vehicle. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the petitioner that on 08.10.06 at 8:15 a.m., a tractor with trailer loaded with stone was seized by forest guard Sayendra Ram in Darudih forest in course of patrolling. The driver of the said tractor was arrested and for that one case was reregistered on the basis of the offence report and accordingly on the basis of the said report a confiscation proceeding was initiated. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is owner of the Tractor no. JH-02G/7803 and Tailor No. JH-02G/7804 which has been seized in this case and thereafter confiscation case bearing No. 28 of 2006 was initiated by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Hazaribagh. On being noticed to appear and file show cause, the petitioner appeared before the Authorised Officer-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Hazaribagh and filed his show cause denying the allegation leveled against him and also set forth his contention. On being noticed to appear and file show cause, the petitioner appeared before the Authorised Officer-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Hazaribagh and filed his show cause denying the allegation leveled against him and also set forth his contention. The petitioner, in his show cause, has clearly stated that the stone loaded on the tractor is not taken from the forest area rather the same has been validly purchased by one Arun Kumar from the M/s. Laxmi Stone on 08.10.06 which was being transported on the vehicle of the petitioner under valid transport Challan. It is the case of the petitioner that the Divisional Forest Officer has not considered the contention of the petitioner in true perspective and has passed an order of confiscation of the said vehicle belonging to the petitioner vide order dated 03.04.2008 in confiscation case no. 28 of 2006. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh which was numbered as Confiscation Appeal No. 28 of 2008 against the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2008 without considering the contention of the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order dated 19.11.2008, the petitioner filed revision before the Revisional Officer-Cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi which was numbered as Revision Petition No.2/ forest Muk. (C) 69/2010, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2012. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. It appears from the pleading made in the writ petition that a confiscation proceeding was initiated on the basis of the prosecution report submitted by one forest guard on the basis of the fact that on interception of the vehicle in question, no document of the stone chips were produced and, therefore, prosecution report for commission of offence under Sections 33, 41, 42, 52 and 64 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 11 and 111 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The competent authority, the Authorized Officer has proceeded with the confiscation proceeding. An F.I.R. was also instituted on the basis of the report submitted to that effect to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. The writ petitioner was called upon by the Authorized Officer to explain as to why the vehicle in question be not confiscated. The competent authority, the Authorized Officer has proceeded with the confiscation proceeding. An F.I.R. was also instituted on the basis of the report submitted to that effect to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. The writ petitioner was called upon by the Authorized Officer to explain as to why the vehicle in question be not confiscated. The petitioner had appeared and defended his case by taking the ground that he was having no knowledge about plying of the vehicle loaded with stone chips. Further, relevant document of purchase of stone chips from one Laxmi Stone, Irga, P.S. Muffasil Hazaribagh was also produced. The Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer has dealt with the aforesaid document and has come to the conclusive finding that at the time of interception of the vehicle, on being asked, no relevant document in support of purchase of stone chips or its mining /transportation of the same over the vehicle in question has been produced and, therefore, the authority has considered the same to be violation of the provision of Section 33 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment 9/1990) and accordingly, the vehicle in question has been confiscated by disposing of Confiscation Case No. 28/06. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner being Appeal Case No.28/2008 and the appellate authority taking into consideration the reason assigned by the Authorized Officer, has declined to interfere with the same. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has preferred revision by approaching the Principal Secretary of the Department of Forest and Environment but the said revision has also been dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2012. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order is before this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has submitted that the Authorized Officer or the appellate authority or the revisional authority have failed to appreciate the very document in support of the defence that the stone chips which was being carried, said to be an illegal act, has wrongly been considered to be an offence committed under Section 33 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 without appreciating the relevant document produced on behalf of the writ petitioner, i.e., the challan issued by M/s Laxmi Stone. It has also been submitted that in the meanwhile the writ petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned orders require interference by allowing the writ petition. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State respondent, on the strength of the counter affidavit filed on their behalf, has submitted that since the writ petition has been filed for a direction for issuance of writ of certiorari and the basic principle to issue writ of certiorari is that if the party concerned will be able to point out an error of finding or if there is any violation of principle of natural justice or there is any miscarriage of justice. But, it is not the case herein, rather, the Authorized Officer, on consideration of the defence put forth by the petitioner, on being called upon, has taken into consideration the challan so produced by the writ petitioner and has come to the conclusive finding that the aforesaid document since was not submitted by the writ petitioner at the time when the vehicle was intercepted and, therefore, the same has been considered to be afterthought, basis upon which if the order for confiscation of the vehicle has been passed, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. In response to the submission that the writ petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that acquittal in the criminal case cannot have any effect upon the decision taken by the confiscating authorities, since, the criminal proceeding and the confiscation proceeding initiated under the conferment of power to the Authorized Officer, both run parallaly having no effect of each other. It has been contended that the appellate as well as the revisional authority has also declined to interfere with the same and, therefore, there is concurrent finding of the authorities concerned and in that view of the matter it will not be proper for this Court to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for showing interference with the impugned orders. 6. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the confiscating authorities in the impugned orders. 7. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the vehicle in question admittedly has been intercepted by the forest guard and found to be loaded with stone chips. The forest guard when intercepted the vehicle, demanded the valid document in support of genuineness of the article loaded therein but no such document, at that time, was furnished and, therefore, a prosecution report was prepared and the same was submitted before the Authorized Officer for the purpose of initiation of confiscation proceeding as also the same was reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Hazaribagh Judgeship. The Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, in exercise of power conferred under Section 52(3) as contained under Indian Forest Act, 1927 has proceeded for confiscation of the vehicle and in course thereof, notice was issued to the writ petitioner to explain as to why the vehicle in question be not confiscated. The writ petitioner had participated and tried to defend his case by producing document in support of the purchase of the stone chips, i.e., the challan issued by M/s. Laxmi Stone dated 08.10.2006. The Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, by taking into consideration the defence so put forth by the writ petitioner, has negated the defence by giving a finding that the day when the vehicle was intercepted, no such document was produced in support of genuineness of purchase of stone chips and, as such has come to the conclusion of violation of Section 33 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and in conclusion the vehicle has been decided to be confiscated and accordingly, the vehicle has been intercepted. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the appellate authority as also by the revisional authority. All the orders passed by the authorities concerned are under judicial scrutiny in this writ petition for quashing and setting aside by issuing writ of certiorari. 8. The principle for issuance of writ of certiorari is well settled as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan, A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477, wherein at paragraph 7 it has been held as under: “7. 8. The principle for issuance of writ of certiorari is well settled as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan, A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477, wherein at paragraph 7 it has been held as under: “7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 .” In Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder in paragraph no.21: “21. With regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari.” In Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships, while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari, has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as hereunder: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra). 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 9. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 9. This Court is now proceeding to examine as to whether the writ petitioner has been able to make out a case for showing interference in the impugned orders by issuance of writ of certiorari. The fact which has been found by this Court by going through the order passed by the Authorized Officer is not in dispute that the day when the vehicle was intercepted, no evidence was produced in support of purchase of stone chips. However, the document has been produced before the Authorized Officer. The question is that when the prosecution report was prepared, basis upon the fact that there was violation of provision of Section 33 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and such prosecution report was prepared when the document to the effect of purchase of stone chips was not produced by the writ petitioner. The confiscation proceeding is based upon the prosecution report prepared by the forest guard, therefore, the initiation of confiscation proceeding since will be at the time when the prosecution report was submitted by the forest guard then the validity of consideration of any document is required to be considered if such document would have been produced before forest guard. But, no such document was produced, as the case of the writ petitioner is. However, the document to that effect was filed before the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer and, therefore, the Divisional Forest Officer, in exercise of quasi-judicial power, has refused to entertain the said document by giving a finding that the said document is an afterthought. 10. This Court, therefore, is of the view that if on the basis of the aforesaid reason as referred hereinabove, the Divisional Forest Officer, in exercise of power conferred under the Act, has come to the aforesaid conclusion, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. The aforesaid finding has also been declined to be interfered with by the appellate as also the revisional authority. The aforesaid finding has also been declined to be interfered with by the appellate as also the revisional authority. The law is well settled that if reasoning is based upon the document, there cannot be interference by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuance of writ of certiorari 11. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the law is well settled in this regard that the proceeding initiated under the Indian Forest Act by way of confiscating proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle, is quite different to that of the proceeding initiated under penal provision as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733 wherein similar issue has been dealt with, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph are being referred hereunder as:- “21.3. Consequently, the mere fact that there was an acquittal in a criminal trial before a Magistrate due to a paucity of evidence would not necessarily result in nullifying the order of confiscation passed by an authorised officer based on a satisfaction that a forest offence had been committed. 24. … … Relying on the earlier decisions of this Court including Divl. Forest Officer v. G.V. Sudhakar Rao, (1985) 4 SCC 573 , N.V. Ramana, J. speaking for the two-Judge Bench held : “23. Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a distinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceeding is 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 the Adhiniyam prescribes an independent procedure for confiscation. The intention of prescribing separate proceedings is to provide a deterrent mechanism and to stop further misuse of the vehicle.” 26. In Kailash Chand v. State of M.P. [1994 SCC OnLine MP 74], a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered a challenge to the constitutional validity of the State Amendments to the Forest Act through M.P. Act 25 of 1983. In Kailash Chand v. State of M.P. [1994 SCC OnLine MP 74], a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered a challenge to the constitutional validity of the State Amendments to the Forest Act through M.P. Act 25 of 1983. Noticing that a criminal prosecution and a proceeding for confiscation are distinct, each with its own purpose and object, the High Court held : “20. … Criminal prosecution is not an alternative to confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are parallel proceedings, each having a distinct purpose and object. The object of confiscation proceeding is to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing the offence. The object of the prosecution is to punish the offender.” Otherwise also, the confiscation of the vehicle is to be dealt with by the Authorized Officer and the penal offence is for penalizing by way of a deterrent provision to a person who is culpable in carrying out the transportation of the goods without any valid document. 12. This Court, therefore, is of the view that merely because the writ petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the decision taken in confiscation proceeding cannot be interfered with. 13. Accordingly and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hereby dismissed.