ORDER

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court made on 31st March, 1983 in Misc. Petition No. 203 of 1983.

2. The admitted facts are that since the truck bearing No. 9493 was found carrying 22 logs of timber on October 4, 1983 without permit, it was seized on the said date by the Divisional Forest Officer under the M.P.Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, No.9 of 1969 (for short, the Act ). On October 5, 1983, a notice was issued to the driver of the truck whether he was willing to have the offence compounded. The truck was valued at Rs.70,000/-. The driver consented to the compounding of the offence and paid a sum of Rs.1,000/-. After following the prescribed procedure, by impugned order, the truck was confiscated as the value thereof was not paid. The respondent challenged the power of seizure in the writ proceedings in the High Court. The High Court held that the Act did not provide the power of confiscation of the truck under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act. By operation of Section 22 of the Act, the Central Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 (for short, the Forest Act ) is not applicable to the confiscation of the truck. The Divisional Forest Officer had not produced the truck before the criminal court nor did he lay any charge-sheet for prosecution of the offender. Therefore, the order of confiscation was without authority of law. Accordingly a direction was given to release the vehicle. Pending appeal in this Court, interim direction was given to release the vehicle to the respondent on furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

3. The question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law? It is contended by Mr. Sakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State, that Section 15 provides for the seizure. Section 19 gives power to compound the offence including payment of the compensation for release of the vehicle seized and confiscation of specified forest produce. Section 22 excludes only the specified forest produce. Section 52 of the Forest Act read with the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 gives power for confiscation of the vehicle or receptacle used for transportation of the forest produce which includes the specified forest produce. Therefore, there is no necessity to expressly provide in the Act, the power for confiscation in Section 19 of the Act of the vehicle, tools or receptacle etc. used for transportation of the specified forest produce. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law.

4. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Act has occupied the field in respect of specified forest produce with power of seizure, power to levy penalty or collect compensation in lieu of prosecution, power to prosecute either for the forest offence or confiscate the forest produce. Having specified the detailed procedure and identified the specified forest produce alone to be confiscated, by necessary implication, the Legislature intended not to take any action for confiscation of the vehicle, cart, receptacle or tools etc. used for offence of transport of forest produce. Unless it is an offence of forest produce under the Forest Act, Sections 52 to 55 of the Forest Act have no application to the facts. Thereby, there is no express power given by the Legislature to the officer to confiscate the vehicle used for the transportation of the specified forest produce. Thus considered, the High Court was clearly right in directing the release of the vehicle.

5. With a view to appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions under the Act. Section 2(d) defines "Forest Produce". Section 2(k) defines "specified area". Section 2(1) defines Specified forest produce". Section 5 imposes restrictions on purchase or transport of specified forest produce except in accordance with the permit issued under