JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. — This revision application under Sec. 401, Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.”) is directed against an order passed by the S.D.J.M., Balasore in Misc. Case No.1 of 2000 rejecting the application under Sec. 457, Cr.P.C. in which prayer was made to release the vehicle (Maruti van) bearing registration No. OR-2A-4762, seized by the Officer-in-charge, Chandipur P.S. vide Chandipur P.S. Case No. 64 of 1999.

2. The brief facts as reveal from the application are that in the night of 5.12.1999 some unknown culprits committed theft of four bundles of electric wire from Fairodori Fuse Call centre. In course of investigation the police seized four bundles of electric wire along with the vehicle in question at Jhagarpadhi Chhak and a proceeding was initiated under Sec. 379, I.P.C. read with Sec. 3 of the Electric Supply-Line Materials (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) and the fact of seizure was intimated to the Authorised Officer-cum-Superintend¬ing Engineer, Electric Circle, NESCO, Balasore and Chandipur P.S. Case No. 64 of 1999 was registered accordingly on the written report of Junior Engineer, Electrical, dated 7.12.1999. An appli¬cation was filed before the S.D.J.M., Balasore for release of the said vehicle. While dealing with the application under Sec. 457, Cr.P.C., the learned S.D.J.M. held that as the proceeding was initiated under Secs. 6 and 7 of the Act, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to release the vehicle under Sec. 457, Cr.P.C. The said order is impugned in this application. In the present facts and circumstances, I have to examine whether the S.D.J.M. has jurisdiction to release the vehicle so seized.

3. On perusal of Sec. 7 of the Act, it reveals that where an Authorised Officer seizes any electric supply-line material or where any such electric supply-line material is produced before him or is made over to him by the police, he shall, if he is satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed in respect thereof,order confiscation of the electric supply-line material together with all tools, ropes, chains, vehicles, vessels and other conveyances used in committing such offence within the prescribed time.

4. Sec. 8 of the said Act provides as follows :

“8. Appeal (1) - Any person aggrieved by an order of confis¬cation made under Sec. 7 may within one month from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the Member, Admin¬istration of the Orissa State Electricity Board, and the appel¬late authority after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, may pass such order as he may think fit, confirming, modi¬fying, or annulling the order appealed against.

(2) The appellate order shall be final and notwithstanding the result of the criminal case, if any, the confiscation as confirmed by the appellate authority shall not be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court of law.”

5. In the case at hand a report has come from the police authority on 10.1.2000 being called for by the S.D.J.M. informing the S.D.J.M. that G.R. Case No. 1481 of 1999 was initiated under Sec. 379, I.P.C. read with Sec. 3 of the Act and the said fact of seizure has been intimated to the Authorised Officer-cum-Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, NESCO, Balasore on 16.12.1999, on the other hand, the impugned order is silent regarding the fact whether the material has been handed over to the Authorised Officer by the police in terms of the statutory provisions. But learned counsel for the State on instruction submitted that the vehicle as well as the materials were handed over to the Authorised Officer on 27.1.2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are similar provisions in the Orissa Forest Act and there are also decisions of this Court wherein it is held that the Magistrate has got jurisdiction to deal with an application for release of the seized vehicle under Sec. 457, Cr.P.C. At this stage it is profitable to quote Sec. 56 of the Orissa F