1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the respondent authorities rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for release of the petitioner’s Truck bearing registration No. UP 44 AT 3225 which has been seized by the authority concerned for offences committed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, Wild Life (Protection) Act, Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 as well as the Indian Penal Code, as the petitioner was caught excavating and transporting sand and destroying the habitat of alligator/crocodile in the Sone Ghadiyal Sanctuary.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid registration of the case against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences committed on 15.6.2018, the respondent authorities have seized the petitioner’s truck and, apart from initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner, are also proceeding with the confiscation proceedings in respect of the truck.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed an application seeking release of the truck during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings which has been rejected by the authorities by the impugned order on the ground that confiscation proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the offences committed by the petitioner are pending.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have registered two cases against the petitioner in respect of one crime namely; one proceeding for confiscation and the other, criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged crime committed by the petitioner. It is submitted that in the instant case the authorities are proceeding with the confiscation during the pendency of the criminal proceedings and, therefore, the proceedings for confiscation initiated and registered against the petitioner are contrary to law. It is submitted that as both proceedings cannot run together, the impugned order passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle on the ground that the confiscation proceedings are pending in respect of the truck concerned, deserves to be quashed as the same is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao [2008(1) JLJ 427].

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

7. The provisions of section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, lays down the procedure for initiating proceedings for confiscation in respect of the tools, machines and vehicle involved in the commission of the forest offence. The provisions of the said Act also provide for taking up action for criminal prosecution and punishment of the person concerned in respect of the forest offence committed by him. Similar provisions are also contained in the Wild Life (Protection) Act as well as the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules 1996.

8. It is settled law that confiscation is not a punishment as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and others v. State of Bihar and others, [(2016)3 SCC 183], State of M.P. and others v. Kallo Bai [2017(14) SCC 502] and Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay [AIR 1953 SC 325], which has also been followed by this Court while interpreting the provisions of rule 53 of the Minor Mineral Rules, in the cases of Kailash Chand and another v. State of M.P. and others [AIR 1995 MP 1]; Ramkumar Sahu v. State of M.P and others [2018(4) MPLJ 171], Biswanath Bhattacharya v. Union of India and others [(2014)4 SCC 392; Divisional Forest Officer and another v. G. V. Sudhakar Rao and others [(1985)4 SCC 573], wherein it has clearly been held that confiscation is not a punishment and that the authorities have a right to initiate both, confiscation and criminal proceedings, against any individual.

9. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay [(2014)9 SCC 772], the Court has gone on to stat