JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 07.11.2006 passed by respondent No.2(Authorized Officer), whereby vehicle bearing No.JKC-8937 and the timber found therein have been confiscated. Petitioner has also challenged order dated 31.10.2007 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, whereby the aforesaid order of the Authorized Officer has been upheld.

2. The facts emerging from the record are that on 05.07.2006, vehicle bearing No.JKC-8937 belonging to the petitioner was seized by the staff of the Forest Department at Gusoo as the said vehicle was found carrying illicit timber (Deodar 20 Nos.=13.11 Cfts). Petitioner approached the Authorized Officer through the medium of an application dated 05.07.2006 seeking release of the seized vehicle and the timber.

The Authorized Officer vide his communication dated 10.07.2006 submitted his report with regard to initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 26 of the Forest Act to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam.

3. It appears that the Authorized Officer published notices on a couple of occasions in daily newspapers inviting objections from the interested persons and informing the public about the date of hearing. When nobody appeared before the Authorized Officer, the order of confiscation of seized vehicle and the timber was passed by the said Authority on 07.11.2006.

4. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioner through the medium of a revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam. The principal grievance urged by the petitioner before the Revisional Court was that he was not given an opportunity of hearing nor he was informed about the date of hearing by the Authorized Officer and, as such, he was deprived of his right to prove his case before the Authorized Officer. The learned Sessions Judge, after perusal of the record, came to the conclusion that petitioner was in know of the proceedings before the Authorized Officer as he had made an application for release of the vehicle and the timber and besides this, public notice notifying date of hearing had been published in local dailies, as such, petitioner cannot have a grievance that he was deprived of his right to contest the confiscation proceedings.

5. Petitioner through the medium instant petition has urged similar same grounds which he had urged before the Revisional Court to assail the impugned orders.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including record of the Authorized Officer.

7. Before proceeding to discuss the facts and the issues involved in this case, it would be apt to refer to the relevant provisions as regards procedure for confiscation of seized forest produce and the vehicles carrying forest produce. Section 26 of the J&K Forest Act, which is applicable to the instant proceedings, deals with this aspect of the matter. It reads as under:

“26. Seizure of property liable to confiscation (1) When there is a reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with all tools, arms, boats, carts, equipment, ropes, chains, machines, vehicles, cattle or any other article used in committing any such offence may be seized by a Forest Officer or Police Officer.

(2) Any officer seizing any property under this section shall place .on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure before an officer not below the rank of the Divisional Forest Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'authorised officer'):

Provided that when the forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of the Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior.

(3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorised officer upon receipt of report about seizure, is satisfied that a f