Summarize the following court judgment. minal Appeal No. 195 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 25	 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision	 Case No. 382 of 1964. P. Ram Reddy and G.S. Rama Rao	 for the appellant. A.V. Rangam	 Miss Sen	 A. Vedavalli and Subhashini	 for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah	 J. Motor Lorry No. A.P.P. 4695 belonging to the respondent Yedla Perraya was seized by the Forest Range Officer	 Gokavaram	 early in the morning of December 25	1963	 when it 624 was being used without a license for carrying	eight Yegisi logs on Rajahmundry Gokavaram Road. The driver of the motor lorry and another person were tried before the 2nd Additional	 2nd Class Magistrate	 Rajahmundry on a complaint 'by the Forest Range Officer for offences under sections 35 and 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and the rules framed thereunder. The two accused admitted that they had committed the offence of illicit transportation of timber	 and on their plea of guilty they were convicted. The respondent applied to the Trial Magistrate for an order releasing the motor lorry on the plea that the offence of transportation of timber was committed without his knowledge and that the value of the timber seized was not more than Rs. 50/ at the relevant time. The learned Magistrate observed: "After careful perusal of the deposition of R.W. 1	 I find that there is nothing in it to indicate that the petitioner knowingly lent his lorry for the illicit transport of timber on the night of 24 12 63. There is also nothing in the case records to show that the petitioner allowed the lorry to illicitly transport the timber on the above date. 1 accordingly hold that the petitioner cannot be said to have knowingly allowed his lorry to illicitly transport the timber. " But the learned Magistrate was of the view that by section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act	 where it was proved that the value of the timber transported exceeded Rs. 50/ 	 he was enjoined to direct confiscation of the vehicle in which the forest produce was being transported without a license. In his view the value of eight logs of timber seized from the lorry was Rs. 311/ at the market rate in Rajahmundry. In appeal by the respondent to the Court of Session at Rajahmundry the order of confiscation was set aside and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the order of the Court of Session. The State of Andhra Pradesh has appealed to this Court with certificate. granted under article 134( 1 ) (c) of the Constitution. The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Forest Act 5 of 1882 provides by section 41 that when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or 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. Section 43 as amended by Act 11 of 1963 provides: "Where a person is convicted of any forest offence	 the Court sentencing him shall order 	confiscation. to the Government of	 the timber or the ' forest produce in respect of which such 'offence was committed	 and also any 625 tool	 boat	 cattle and vehicle and any other article used in committing such offence: Provided that it shall be open to such Court not to order confiscation of any tool	 boat	 cattle	 vehicle or any other article used in committing such offence when the value of the timber or the forest produce in respect of which such offence was committed does not exceed fifty rupees. " It may be observed that before the Forest Act was amended by Act 11 of 1963	 the Magistrate was not obliged to direct confiscation of the articles	 vehicles	 cattle	 tools or boats used for committing a forest offence. The Trial Magistrate was of the view that after the amendment of the Forest Act by Act 11 of 1963 he had no option and he was bound on conviction of the offender in respect of any forest offence to direct confiscation of the vehicle used in the commission of such offence. Counsel for the respondent contended that if the interpretation put by the Trial Magistrate upon section 43 as amended is correct	 the enactment imposes an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right ' of the owner of the vehicle declared by article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution	 and is on that account void. Counsel urged that a statute which imposes upon a person who has himself not committed any offence or infraction of the law liability to forfeit his valuable property must be regarded as unreasonable. It was urged that if a vehicle is stolen and then used for commission of a forest offence	 or is borrowed by some person for a legitimate purpose and then used without the consent or knowledge of the owner for committing an offence under the Forest Act	 or where with a view to involve the owner of the vehicle into a forest offence	 forest produce is surreptitiously introduced into the vehicle	 and the vehicle is liable to be forfeited	 the provision making it obligatory to impose the penalty of forfeiture of the vehicle must be deemed to impose an unreasonable restriction on the owner of the vehicle and is ultra rites on that account. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to express any opinion on that part of the case. Assuming that the statute which enjoins the Magistrate to confiscate the vehicle used in the commission of the forest offence	 even when it is used without the knowledge or consent of the owner	 is valid	 in our judgment	 section 47 of the Act enables the Court of Session and the High Court to make an appropriate order with regard to the vehicle which is just. That section provides: "Any person claiming to be interested in property seized under section 41	 may	 within one month from the date of any order passed under section 43	 44 or 626 45	 present an appeal therefrom which may be disposed of in the manner provided by section 419 Code of Criminal Procedure. " The reference to section 419 is to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1872 in force when the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 5 of 1882 was enacted. Section 419 of the Code of 1872 is now substituted by section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1898	 and by section 520 power is conferred	 inter alia	 upon the court of appeal to direct that any order passed under sections 517	 518 or 519 by a Court subordinate thereto be stayed pending consideration by the Court of appeal	 and that Court may modify	 alter or annul such order and make any further order that may be just Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act does not restrict the power of the appellate court to pass any appropriate order as may be just regarding disposal of the property. The Court of Session in the present case has on the finding recorded by the Magistrate and confirmed by it passed an order which is essentially a just order and that has been confirmed by the High Court. The Legislature had originally conferred a discretion both upon the Magistrate and the Court of Appeal to pass appropriate order with regard to the disposal of property used in the commission of the offence as may be just. The Legislature has thereafter amended section 43 by Act 11 of 1963 and made it obligatory upon the Magistrate to confiscate the property or the vehicle used in the commission of Such offence. No such restriction has	 however	 been placed upon the power of the appellate court and we will not be justified	 having regard to the clear expression of the legislative intent	 that the power is to be limited in the manner provided by section 43. There is no warrant for implying that the power conferred by section 47 of the Act upon the appellate court is subject to some unexpressed limitation. The High Court was	 therefore	 right in holding that the motor lorry belonging to the respondent	 on the finding recorded by the Magistrate was not liable to be confiscated. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. V.P.S	 Appeal dismissed.

The respondent 's lorry was used by the driver of the lorry and another	 without the respondent 's knowledge	 for illicit transport of forest timber worth more than Rs. 50. The driver and the other person were convicted for offences under sections 35 and 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act	 1882	 and the magistrate directed confiscation of the lorry under section 43 of the Act as amended by Act 11 of 1963. The Sessions Court set aside the order of confiscation in appeal and the High Court confirmed the order of the Sessions Court. In appeal to this Court	 HELD: The Legislature originally conferred both upon the trial court and the appellate court a discretion to pass an appropriate: order with regard to the disposal of a vehicle used in the commission of an offence under the Act. After the amendment of 1963	 the Legislature made it obligatory upon the trial court to confiscate the vehicle used	 but no such restriction was placed upon the appellate court; Under section 47	 the appellate court could pass orders regarding disposal of property in the same manner 'as an appellate court under section 520 Criminal Procedure Code	 corresponding to section 419 of the Code of 1872. Under section 520 of the Code	 power is conferred upon the appellate court to pass any appropriate order	 as may be just	 regarding the disposal of property used in the commission of any offence. The order of the Sessions Court in appeal in the present case was essentially a just order and was rightly confirmed by the High Court. [626 B E]