( 1 ) THE State has approached this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1985 dated 20-5-1987.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are :

( 3 ) THAT on 12-9-1984 the respondents who is owner of the Matador passed through Bilkha-Visavadar Road. At that time near Navi Chavand Patia the Range Forest Officer Visavadar Range raided the vehicle with the help of Police party. On search he found illegal out Sagi wood. There were in all 40 Sagi wood was forest produce and there- fore under Sec. 61a of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the offence was registered and inquiry was held and ultimately on 28-11-1985 the Deputy Conservator of Forest Gir (West) Junagadh convicted the wood as well as the vehicle used in illegal transportation of the said Sagi wood.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said order of confiscation the accused preferred an appeal under Sec. 61d of the Act in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Junagadh and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dt. 20/05/1987 allowed the said appeal and set aside the said order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest Gir (West) dt. 28-11-1985. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also ordered to return the amount of Rs. 1000. 00 to the accused-appellant which was recovered as advance Recovery by the Deputy Conservator of Forests Junagadh

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Junagadh the State has performed this petition before this Court under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

( 6 ) THE learned Addl. P. P. appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged before this Court that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while deciding the appeal has not kept in mind the provisions of Sec 61d of the Forests Act and therefore he has wrongly come to the decision of quashing and setting aside the order of confiscation. The learned Addl. P. P. submits that by virtue of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 61b the owner must satisfy the authorised officer that the vehicle was used in carrying the forest produce without knowledge of connivance of the owner himself his agent if any and the person in charge of the vehicle his taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. There is no evidence on record that the owner of the vehicle had taken care and necessary precautions and the it was used in carrying forest produce without knowledge or connivance of the owner of the vehicle. Under these circumstances the learned Addl. Sessions Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forest was bad

( 7 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that this Court has limited jurisdiction under Art 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court cannot interfere usually to correct the error of law is the decision and will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination was arrived at by the superior Court

( 8 ) NOW sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Sec 61a of the Forests Act reads as under notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of the Chapter or in any other law for the time being in force where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest produce which is the property of the state Government the officer seizing the properly under sub-sec (1) of See shall without any unreasonable delay produce it together with all tools ropes chains boats vehicle and cattle used in committing such offence before an Officer authorised by the state Government in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette not being below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forest (hereinafter referred to as the authorised Officer ). (2) Where the authorised Officer seizes under sub-sec (1) of Sec. 52 and forest produce whic