An order of acquittal in a criminal court is not binding on the quasi-judicial authority, and the authorized officer has the power to confiscate property under Section 71-A irrespective of the outcome of a criminal prosecution.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Authorised Officer, hassan Division, Hassan dated 15-12-1995 in Case No. CI. Amo. CR. 55/89-90 confirmed in Cri. A. No. 4 of 1996, dated 25-6-1997 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. The authorised officer - Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hassan Division, by the impugned order confiscated the lorry bearing Registration No. CTS 9243 claimed to be the property of the petitioner which order is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to this revision are as follows: the lorry bearing Registration No. CTS 9243 which was in the ownership of the petitioner was taken on hire for the purpose of transporting oranges. It is the case of the petitioner that the driver and the cleaner of the said lorry came and informed on the evening of 31-12-1989 that somebody committed theft of the lorry. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police, In the meantime, the lorry in question which was seized by the District Forest Officer and his staff near Vatehole Nale Cross near Alur-Chikkodi Road, initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ("the Act" for short ). Notice of this proceeding was served on the petitioner who is the owner of the lorry, who entered appearance and filed his objections contending that the lorry was taken away by some thieves on the night of 30-12-1989 and that he was not aware of the fact that the lorry in question was used for transporting teak cut logs and the property seized was not the property of the forest; he has no jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceedings under Section 71-A of the Act. The authorised officer held an inquiry while the forest officials appeared as prosecution witnesses in proof of the seizure of the lorry which was found transporting teak logs, the petitioner herein who entered appearance through his Advocate failed to adduce any evidence in support of his defence. Considering the evidence on record, the authorised officer found that there was sufficient material that a forest offence is believed to have been committed, ordered confiscation of the seized vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 71-D of the Act in Cri. A. No. 4 of 1996 on the file of the District and sessions Judge, Hassan who on consideration of the rival contentions found no good grounds to accept the contentions canvassed on behalf of the appellant and therefore, confirmed the order of confiscation. The petitioner has assailed the legality and correctness of these two orders in this revision.

( 3 ) THE specific grounds on which the impugned orders are assailed are these: (A) That the learned Sessions Judge and Deputy Conservator of forests, erred in confiscating the vehicle, because the owner as well as the driver did not commit any offence; (B) If the vehicle is taken away by thieves and they were transporting forest produce, the owner cannot be held liable; (C) Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act is not applicable in this case; (D) The alleged offence is compoundable. Therefore, the order of confiscation is bad in law.

( 4 ) I have heard the arguments of Sri Kashinath Rao Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Marigowda, learned Additional state Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the records. The learned Counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the grounds of revision questioned the jurisdiction of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, hassan Division, for initiating confiscation proceedings on the ground that the vehicle in question was not seized within his jurisdiction and in the absence of criminal case against the driver or the owner, as the case may be, and in the absence of conviction of the driver or the owner for forest offence, the authorised officer has no jurisdiction to pass the order of confiscation of the vehicle. Th