(1.) THE lorry bearing Registration No.KED 8679 was seized on 08.12.1996, 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 04.11.1996, 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.) 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.Yadhava's 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.