S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. Noticing divergent views expressed by two learned Single Judges of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1996 (1) PLJR 863 and Md. Akhtar and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1995 (2) East Cr. C. 345, one of us (Loknath Prasad, J.) by his order dated 1.5.97 referred the matter to the Division Bench to resolve the aforesaid conflicting views.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the Forester in connection with a forest offence. It was found that the vehicle had a secret chamber meant for concealing some articles and in that very chamber two kgs. of Kattha, which is admittedly a forest produce, was being carried in the said vehicle. A case under the Indian Forest Act was instituted and prosecution report was submitted against driver and the owner of the concerned vehicle. A Confiscation Case No. 24/94 was initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh and being noticed the petitioner, claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle, entered appearance and filed his show cause. However, after hearing the parties the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated to the