( 1 ) BAJIRAO Waghade, owner of Survey No. 73 applied to the Range Forest officer, Hingni, for permission to cut matured teak-wood trees standing in his land Survey no. 73. According to the petitioner, the revenue Officer conducted survey and recorded that 178 teak-wood trees are standing in the land Survey No. 73. The Forest Officials granted no objection for cutting of the trees. Proclamation was issued and no objections were received. The Range Forest Officer who is the Tree Officer did not decide the petitioner's application fora period of one year and 9 months, rather never decided the application. On 14-2-2001 petitioner served notice on Range Forest Officer calling upon him to grant permission and after expiry of 7 days, treating that he was entitled to cut the trees, cut off all the trees on 21-2-2001. Upon cutting the trees, he applied for transit pass, which is required for removal of the trees from the place it was cut off. On 1-3-2001 the Range forest Officer seized the timber, recorded primary offence No. 57/3. The action of seizure was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub- divisional Officer, Arvi, who decided the matter and held that the seizure was illegal and that the wood was liable to be returned within 7 days. The Range Forest Officer did not return the timber.

( 2 ) ONE of the simultaneous development was that the Range Forest Officer had filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner filed two applications, one was filed which is Exh. 21 u/s. 258, Cr. P. C. , for claiming discharge, and another application exh. 24, claiming property be returned i. e. the wood in the said criminal case, which applications were rejected. The petitioner then moved revision application before the Court of additional Sessions Judge, Wardha. His revision application was registered as Criminal revision Application No. 85/2000, which was heard and decided by Second Additional sessions Judge, Wardha, by judgment and order dated 13th May, 2002, and the same was dismissed, and gave a direction that the Regular criminal Case No. 38/01 to be heard and decided expeditiously.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has filed present petition wherein he has prayed for two reliefs, (i) that he should be discharged and (ii) that the property be released in favour of the petitioner on Supratnama, by allowing application Exh. 21 and Exh. 24 respectively.

( 4 ) IT is seen that the original land owner Bajirao Waghade is one of the accused while the present petitioner is another. The application for return of property was submitted by the present petitioner Kishor. It is thus, this accused i. e. Kishor alone has filed the present petition.

( 5 ) THE petition is based on the foundations namely-

(I) that the Range Forest Officer's order of seizure of goods was illegal; (ii) the order of seizure was already set aside; (iii) that if the application for felling of tress under Section 3 (1) (c) was liable to be decided within 60 days from the date of receipt, and failure to decide the application raises a fiction of deemed permission. More particularly, when inspite of notice of 7 days, the application for permission for felling of trees was not decided, the petitioner was entitled to cut the trees. (iv) the criminal case- charge-sheet was filed after ten months. (v) the plea of the Forest Department that 138 teak-wood trees and 2 other trees were cut off from the Forest land Survey No. 214, while only 11 trees belonged to accused was incorrect, because as back as in June, 1999, 13796 trees were already cut of from the Forest land, and therefore, the story that trees were cut off from the Forest area was totally false.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner then placed reliance on reported judgment, namely - 1996 Cr. L. J. 449 [m/s. Shastri Sales Corporation and others Vs. Income-Tax Officer], to contend that the prosecution was liable to be quashed if the failure complained of was at the same time capable of mitigation by fiscal penal