The following order of the Court was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Singh, Acting Chief Justice:

1. The petitioners claim themselves to be the owners of vehicles which have been seized either by a Forest Officer or a Police Officer not below the rank of a head constable on a reason to believe that forest offence under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 has been committed. Also since forest offence has been registered against the persons alleged to have committed the same, they are being prosecuted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such forest offence. The petitioners applied for interim release of their vehicles before the Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but their applications have been rejected on the ground that no Court had jurisdiction to order for such interim release in view of bar under Section 52C of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for interim release of their vehicles. The learned Single Judge was however of the opinion that decisions of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of DelhI) Vs. Narender, 2014 (13) SCC 100, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624 and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Vs. J.K. Johnson, (2011) 10 SCC 794, have led to diametrically opposed enunciation of law. He has, therefore, framed a question of law, to be answered by a Larger Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before us. And the question of law framed is as follows:-

“Whether, the vehicle seized under the provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 can be released during pendency of the trial on superdgi to the registered owner by the criminal court where trial is pending or such a power can only be exercised by the competent authority named in the Act as per the amended Sections 52 to 55 of the Act?”

2. The Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (in short, 'the Act') is a special statute enacted for the purposes of preserving the forest and forest produce in the State. For proper consideration of the question raised, it is necessary to refer some of the relevant Sections of the Act.

3. According to Section 2(3) of the Act, forest offence means an offence punishable under the Act or any other rule framed thereunder and under Section 67 of the Act, forest offence is triable by a Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Metropolitan Magistrate or any Magistrate of First Class specially empowered by the High Court in a summarily manner.

4. Section 52 of the Act deals with seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefor. It enacts as follows:-

“52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefor.-(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all machinery, arms, tools, boats, cattle, vehicle, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or a Police Officer not below the rank of a head constable.

(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) or where it is, having regard to quantity or bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce property seized before the authorised officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorised officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made:

Provided that, when the forest produce with respect t