The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 457 of the Cr. P. C. when the vehicle has been produced before the Authorised Officer for confiscation proceeding under the Orissa Forest Act.

L. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner who is working as Forester in Koonjhar Forest Division, challenging the judgment and order dated 17-1-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koonjhar in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2002 giving liberty to the opposite party to move the learned Magistrate for release of a vehicle with a further direction to the learned Magistrate to deal with such application in accordance with the observation made in the judgment.

( 2 ) SHRI Padhi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. ORD-9-D-1977 was seized by Barbil Police while carrying teak sleepers without permit. The said vehicle was handed over to the Forest Department for initiation of a Confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. After taking possession of the vehicle the department initiated a confiscation proceeding vide O. R. Case No. 360 of 2002-2003. Owner of the vehicle-opposite party No. 1 appeared before the Authorised Officer, filed his show cause and also filed an application under Section 57 of the Act for interim release of the vehicle and the said application is pending consideration. In the meantime, the opposite party No. 1 also filed an application under Section 457 of the Cr. P. C. before the learned J. M. F. C. Barbil for release of the vehicle. Said petition having been rejected by the learned J. M. F. C. the opposite party carried a revision before the Sessions Court. It is further submitted by Sri Padhi that the revisional Court referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Sudhanshu Kumar Das v. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 19 OCR 63; State of Orissa v. Basanta Naik reported in (2000) 18 OCR 4, Padmini v. State of Orissa reported in (1992) 3 OCR 332 and Baikuntha Behari Mahapatra v. State of Orissa reported in 2001 Cri LJ 4151 held that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the application under Section 457 of the Cr. P. C. and accordingly directed the learned J. M. F. C. for reconsideration of the application. According to Sri Padhi, the judgment of the revisional Court runs contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. Ranjit Kaur Raina reported in (1995 3 OCR 526. According to Sri Padhi once a vehicle is seized in connection with commission of offence under the Orissa Forest Act and the vehicle involved in commission of such offence is produced before the Authorised Officer, the Magistrate loses its jurisdiction in entertaining an application under Section 457, Cr. P. C. and such submission is made on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. Manjit Kaur Raina (supra ). Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand, submitted that if seizure of the vehicle involved in commission of a forest offence or otherwise is either reported to a Magistrate or produced before the Magistrate, as per several decisions of this Court the Magistrate assumes jurisdiction and he is capable of entertaining an application under Section 457, Cr. P. C. Reference is made by the learned counsel for the opposite party to the decisions relief upon by the revisional Court indicated earlier.

( 3 ) FROM the impugned orders it appears that the vehicle in question was seized by Darbil Police as it was carrying seven pieces of teak sleepers and on the basis of such seizure Darbil P. S. Case No. 170 of 2002 corresponding to G. R. case No. 319 of 2002 in the file of the learned J. M. F. C. were registered for commission of offence under Sections 379, 411 of the Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Orissa Forest Act. It also appears from the impugned order that after seizure of the vehicle the same was handed over to the Forest Section Officer for initiation of proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act. The learned Sessions Judge observed that after seizure of the