JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — The judgment dated 24.03.2007 of the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Baripada in Criminal Revision No.3/29 of 2006 directing release of the seized Hero Honda Motorcycle and the mobile handset by setting aside the order dated 19.07.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Udala in 2(b) C.C. Case No.33 of 2006 is assailed in the instant revision.

2. FACTS OF THE CASE:

On 23.06.2006 at about 4.00 A.M. the forest officials de¬tected a Mahindra Pickup Van bearing registration number OR-01-D-9622 loaded with 120 pieces of Sal and Kaima timbers. During course of detection, it is alleged, the driver of the said Van and the timber smugglers fled away. The opposite party was caught red handed along with a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registra¬tion number OR-01-E-7639 and a mobile phone. As per instruction of the Range Officer, the above noted vehicles and mobile phone were seized together with the forest produce, seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses and accused-opposite party was arrested. On 13.07.2005, the accused-opposite party filed a petition before the S.D.J.M., Udala to release the seized Hero Honda Motorcycle and the mobile phone. The S.D.J.M. after hearing the parties rejected the said petition by order dated 19.07.2006 inter alia on the ground that there was every chance of institut¬ing confiscation proceeding by the Authorised Officer under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act with regard to the seized property. Against that order, accused-opposite party preferred Crl.Revision No.29 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada. The said revision was eventually trans¬ferred to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Baripada and renumbered as Crl. Revision No.3/29 of 2006. The Addl. Ses¬sions Judge after hearing the parties by judgment dated 24.03.2007 allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the S.D.J.M. and directed release of the seized Hero Honda Motorcycle and mobile phone inter alia with the finding that no confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act was pending before the Authorised Officer and there was also absolutely nothing in the P.R. to suggest that the opposite party is a timber mafia. Assailing the said order of the Addl.Sessions Judge, the State has preferred this revision.

3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release the properties in question which have not been seized by the police officer but by the forest officials in connection with forest offence. Therefore, the impugned judgment allowing the revision is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, Mr. Rao relies upon the decisions in State of Orissa v. Akhaya Charan Choudhury, 1990 (I) OLR 481, Sarat Kumar Malu v. State of Orissa, 57 (1984) CLT 381 and Kuril Tirla v. State of Orissa, 2007 (36) OCR 828.

4. Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that this revision is not maintainable on the grounds (i) that the order out of which it arises is an interlocutory one, (ii) that the petitioner has annexed to the revision petition the order sheet containing the ordering portion only and not the entire judgment dated 24.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Baripada, and (iii) that the revision has not been filed by the State of Orissa but by the Range Offi¬cer, which cannot represent the State as his status is just like an informant. He further submitted that there is no illegality committed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in reversing the order of the S.D.J.M. when there was no proceeding pending before the Authorised Officer, even no notice was served upon the opposite party and there was no report of initiation of any confiscation proceeding till 24.03.2007. The factum of seizure was communicat¬ed to the S.D.J.M., Udala while forwarding the accused. There was no intimation of any confiscation proceeding till that date by the forest offi