JUDGMENT

R. N. BISWAL, J. — This Revision is directed against the order dated 4.11.2004 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bonai in Misc. Case No.34 of 2004 arising out of G.R. Case No.299 of 2004 wherein he rejected the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for interim release of the tipper bearing registration No.OR-09-D-9623 in his favour.

2. The factual matrix as found from the F.I.R., impugned order and the Revision petition leading to filing of this Revi¬sion in succinct is that on 11.9.2004 at about 3.00 P.M. while the C.I. of police of Karua Circle and his staff were performing patrol duty at Dengula-Kusumdihi road, receiving reliable infor¬mation that manganese ore being illegally raised from Kandarkala hill were transported, they proceeded towards that hill. On the way the police personnel seeing the aforesaid tipper loaded with manganese ore coming along Bandala Panchayat road towards Dengu¬la, intercepted it. In the meantime out of five occupants of the tipper, four including the driver managed to escape. However, the owner of the said vehicle was caught red-handed and on interroga¬tion, admitted to have raised the manganese ore without any valid authority and disclosed the names of the occupants of the tipper who fled away at the sight of the police personnel. So the C.I. of police, Karua Circle drew up plain paper F.I.R., arrested the accused-petitioner (owner of the tipper) for the offence under Sections 379/411/34 I.P.C. read with Section 12 of the O.M.P.T.U. Act, 1989 and on return to Police Station with the accused-peti¬tioner, seized the manganese ore along with the tipper and drew up formal F.I.R. On weighment, the manganese ore were found to be 6.600 M.Ts. worth Rs.40,000/-. He reported about the seizure of manganese ore along with the tipper to the S.D.J.M., Bonai. Accordingly G.R. Case No.299 of 2004 was registered. In the mean¬time the Forester of Dengula reseized the manganese ore along with the tipper under Sections 37 and 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and produced the same before the Authorized Officer-cum-D.F.O., Bonai for initiating a proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act. This fact was intimated to the S.D.J.M., Bonai.

3. The accused-petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the tipper bearing registration No. OR-09-D-9623 filed a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Bonai with a prayer for interim release of the said vehicle in his favour. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, the S.D.J.M. vide his order dated 4.11.2004 rejected the petition on the ground that after the vehicle was produced before the Authorized Officer-cum-D.F.O. for initiation of a proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, he (S.D.J.M.) ceased to have any authority to release the same in favour of the petitioner and that the petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was not entertainable by him since the vehi¬cle was seized by a Forester. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner (owner of the vehicle) has preferred this Revision as stated earlier.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the manganese ore along with the tipper were seized by the police personnel and the fact of seizure was intimated to the learned S.D.J.M., Bonai. So even though the said vehicle was produced before the Authorized Officer-cum-D.F.O., it was the S.D.J.M. who ought to have entertained the petition and not the Authorized Officer. In support of his submission he relied upon the decisions’ in State of Orissa v. Basant Nayak and others; (2000) 18 OCR 4, Sudhanshu Kumar Das v. State of Orissa; (2000) 19 OCR 63 and Smt. Jasoda Das v. State of Orissa; 2004 (I) OLR 38. In contra learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the vehicle in question having been re-seized by a forest offi¬cial, the aforesaid decisions would not be applicable to the present case. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner again submi