1. This revision has come before us on reference by one of us, Bhaskaran, (J). The facts of the case are as follows:

2. The revision is filed against the order passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam in C.M.A. No. 38 of 1998. The C.M.A. was filed against the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam confiscating a mini lorry bearing Registration No. KL 7D 2374 belonging to the first respondent. The revision petitioners are Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam and the State of Kerala.

3. The revision petitioners' case is that the first respondent had used his mini lorry for illicit transport of the smuggled timber on 24.3.1993. The timber was alleged to have been transported by one Dr. Kurian. The vehicle was seized on 27.3.1993. The Divisional Forest Officer by order dated 27.2.1998 directed confiscation of the vehicle on the finding that the first respondent used the vehicle at 1'o Clock during night for transporting unfinished door frames, window frames, etc. made of fresh teak wood, rose wood and maruthu. It was found that the first respondent deviated from the main route and avoided the forest checking stations by diverting the route through a rugged soupe route. It was also found that the documents produced to show that these articles locally purchased by Dr. Kurian were not acceptable and therefore, it was presumed that the timber might have been cut and removed from the reserved forest and unauthorisedly brought to the house of Dr. Kurian after cutting and converting it into door frames, window frames, dining table legs, etc.

4. The District Court in appeal found that the vehicle was not seized at the time of transportation of the timber items. It was also found that the first respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine the Range Officer who prepared the report and therefore it is not just and proper to place reliance on the report of the Range Officer to come to the conclusion that the mini lorry was used for transportation of the timer items. Therefore the questions which arise for consideration are whether the mini lorry should have been seized while transporting the timber and whether the first respondent should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the Range Officer, who prepared the report. It was in these circumstances that the Civil Revision Petition was referred to the Division Bench.

5. The first question is whether the fact that the vehicle was not seized along with the timber deprives the forest officials of the rights to seize and confiscate the vehicle. Learned Counsel for the respondents brought to our notice a decision reported in Divisional Forest Officer v. Amina,1999 (1) KLJ 433. There, a Division Bench of this Court held that "on a plain reading of S.52, it is clear that the vehicles could be seized by the forest authorities or police officers if that was found to be involved in committing the offence. S.52 does not confer any power on the forest authorities to ask the owner of the vehicle to produce the same in the forest office much after the offence allegedly committed.". S.52(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 says as follows:

"52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation:- (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or other forest produce, such timber or produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer".

A reading of this Section does not indicate that there should be simultaneous seizure of the timber or forest produce and tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles, etc. It may happen that the forest offence would have been committed with respect to timber. The Forest Authorities would have got information only later. By the time the timber would have been stored in some place as had happened in this case. It cannot be said that because the timber has been stored in a particular place, the v