JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1) Confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner, allegedly being involved in a forest offence, is under challenge in this case along with the order of the “Authorised Officer”, confiscating the same, as well as the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Darjeeling dated September 4, 2023 in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2022, thereby upholding the order of confiscation of the vehicle and rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for return of the seized vehicle.

2) The sole question involved in this case is whether confiscation of the vehicle under the provisions of the Indian Forests Act 1927, as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act, would be or not subject to the substantial and procedural criminal laws.

3) With the factual background of the case, necessary to be dealt with for proper adjudication thereof be narrated as herein below.

4) The petitioner is the registered owner of a truck bearing number BR-11-GB-8714. This same was detained by the Assistant Divisional Officer, Kurseong, on March 19, 2021, on the allegation of illegal and unauthorisedly mining of the forest produce, that is, boulders from the riverbed. The alleged offending vehicle was found partially loaded with boulders and left abandoned by the driver and other miscreants using the said vehicle. The vehicle was seized and seizure list was prepared.

5) The “Authorised Officer”, Kurseong and Siliguri Sub-division and Divisional Forest Officer, Kurseong Division, has initiated the process of confiscation of the said vehicle, under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, as amended, vide order dated May 23, 2022, has confiscated the vehicle.

6) The said order of confiscation dated May 23, 2022, of the “Authorised Officer”, was challenged by the present petitioner in Misc Appeal No.7 of 2022, before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 1st Court at Darjeeling, filed under section 59D(3) of the said Act. The Court has passed its judgment dated September 4, 2023, which is impugned in the instant case. The Court has upheld the order of the “Authorised Officer”, and declined the petitioner’s prayer for release of the vehicle. Hence this revision.

7) Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted firstly that confiscation procedure under the said Act, would be subject to commission of a forest offence. Following the commission of an offence the statutory authorities were required to promptly address the matter by filing a first information report before the police immediately after receipt of information thereof. According to Mr. Chowdhury, the same would have been the prima facie material to show commission of an offence. Otherwise, without any prima facie material to show commission of offence under the provisions of the said Act, no process as well as order for confiscation of petitioner’s vehicle would be maintainable and sustainable in the eye of law, Mr. Chowdhury says. He would say that in order to deprive a person of his right to property it is necessary for the State to show that deprivation of the person’s right to property is a consequence of commission of an offence and not otherwise. He would rely on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Abdul Vahab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243, (ii) State of M.P. vs. Madhukar Rao reported in (2008) 14 SCC 624, (iii) State of West Bengal vs. Sujit Kumar Rana reported in (2004) 4 SCC 129, to buttress his such submission.

8) Mr. Chowdhury would further submit about the procedural irregularity and non-compliance with the principles of natural justice in the process of confiscating the vehicle, which according to him, has rendered the process of confiscation as illegal and not tenable in the eye of law. He would say that the petitioner was issued notice by the “Authorised Officer” and questioned before an order of confiscation was passed. However allegedly the petitioner has not been afforded the