Ratios:
a. A owner of the vehicle, for seeking the return of his vehicle seized under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 has got burden to prove not only the absence of knowledge but also that he had taken all precautions against the illegal use of the vehicle.
b. Sec.49-D of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 ousts the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the order passed by the Sessions Judge under the Act.
c. The order of the Sessions Judge passed under Sec.49-D of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 can be challenged by the parties only under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The lorry bearing Registration No.KED 8679 was seized on 012. 1996, as the same was found carrying sandalwood in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The said vehicle was owned by one Mr.Nagendran. The first respondent purchased the said vehicle on 011. 1996, but the registration was not transferred in the name of the first respondent. The first respondent made an application to the authority requesting for return of the vehicle to her contending thereby that she had no knowledge that the driver of the vehicle in whose charge the vehicle was entrusted would use the same for such an illegal purpose. Rejecting the said contention, the Authorised Officer viz. The District Forest Officer, Villupuram, by order dated 31.01.1997, ordered confiscating the said lorry in favour of the Government. Challenging the same, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Villupuram in Crl.A.No.27 of 1997. By order dated 05.08.1998, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forest Officer. Challenging the said order, the State has forward with this writ petition come before this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Despite the service of notice on the first respondent, she has not appeared.

3. When the writ petition was heard, a question arose as to whether this writ petition is maintainable and whether an alternative remedy is available under Section 397 Cr.P.C. by way of revision. A perusal of Section 49-D of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") would show that as against an order under Section 49-B of the Act, an appeal lies to the Sessions Judge and the said order of the Sessions Judge is final. Sub section 2 to Section 49-D of the Act, provides that an order of Sessions Judge under sub section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law. Since the order of the Sessions Judge has been declared to be final under the statue, the question is as to whether the said order can be challenged by way of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., as any order of inferior Criminal Court can be questioned by way of revision before the High Court.

.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that under Section 49-D(2) of the Act, the power of the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 as well as Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands ousted. When a similar question arose before the Karnataka High Court in respect of a similar provision found in the Karnataka Forest Act, there were conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches. Therefore, the matter was referred to a Full Bench in A. Yadava vs. Authorised Officer (2006 Crl.L.J.1568). The Full Bench had taken note of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of State of West Bengal vs. Sujit Kumar Rana [(2004) 4 SCC 129], State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Dhanwant Singh [2005 SCC (Crl) 248) and also having taken note of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Forest Act, ultimately held that the power of the High Court under Sections 397, 401 and 483 of Cr.P.C. stands ousted by the Forest Act. The Full Bench has held that the remedy available for an aggrieved against the order passed by the Session Judge is only under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Section 71-D of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 49-B and 49-D of the Act are in pari materia. Having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 49-D (2) of the act, I fully agree with the view taken by the Karnataka Full Bench in A.Yadhavas case (cited supra). Thus, I hold that the writ petition is maintainable and the order passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 49-D of the Act, cannot be called in question by way of revision either under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Now, coming back to the facts of the case, it