The Magistrate has jurisdiction to pass order relating to interim custody of the property under S. 457, Cr. P. C. even with respect to forest produce.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against order dt. 7-4-1989 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, directing release of caoutchouc (kattha hereinafter called kattha for sake of brevity) in favour of Opp. Party No. 1 Ram Babu on his furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Parties have exchanged affidavits and the revision has been finally heard with the agreement of the parties at admission stage.

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this revision are that one Jagdish Khalifa, residing in House No. C-2/19 situate in Aurangabad Pandariba, Varanasi, has a son Ashok Kumar Chaurasia (Opp. Party No. 2 in this revision ). On 29-4-1988 Officers of the Forest Department accompanied by police raided the aforesaid Premises No. C-2/19 and seized 203 bags containing 5,357 kilograms of Kattha. Ashok Kumar Chaurasia was taken into custody. On 30-4-1988 application for release of Ashok Kumar on bail was moved and it was inter alia alleged that the Kattha seized belongs to the Firm of his father Jagdish Khalifa.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the seizure was purported to be under S. 52 of the Forest Act, 1927 and a report of seizure was made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure was made. On 4-7-1988 Opp. Party No. 1 Ram Babu Kesari moved application before the Magistrate concerned for release of seized Kattha. His case was that partnership firm M/s. Sri Ram Enterprises, dealing in Supari, Kattha and Kirana etc. came into existence on 10-7-1987. Its head office is in Premis No. D-51/117 Purana Pandariba, Varanasi, Jagdish Prasad Chaurasia (aforementioned Khalifa) and Ram Babu have been partners of the said firm. Premises No. C-2/19 is not only residential house of Jagdish Prasad but is godown of the firm. Kattha seized is stock in trade of the said firm. Applicant Ram Babu relied upon Partnership Deed dt. 6-4-88 on the basis of which the firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms in June, 1988. Certain sales tax papers and documents relating to purchase and payments were also filed.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the Forest Department and State of U. P. the application for release was opposed. It was contended that the seized Kattha is government property liable to be confiscated. Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the Kattha. Documents filed by Ram Babu are forged and fictitious and have been prepared only for the purposes of this case. Even these papers do not prove that the seized Kattha was purchased by the firm.

( 5 ) LEARNED Magistrate concluded that the documents filed by Ram Babu are not reliable and at any rate it has not been proved that the seized Kattha was purchased by the firm. Learned Magistrate did not go into the question whether he had jurisdiction to release the Kattha or not. He dismissed the release application.

( 6 ) THEN Ram Babu went up in revision before Sessions Judge. It appears from the revisional Court judgement that it was inter alia on behalf of Ram Babu that the officers of Forest Department raided the godown illegally and wrongly seized Kattha. Revisional Court did not accept the contention that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release Kattha. The revisional Court relied upon S. 457, Cr. P. C. It noted that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated in respect of seized Kattha. Revisional Court further found that firm has been in existence and has been carrying on business of Kattha also. Without discussing the documents in detail and observing that the validity of documents will be touched at the time of final trial, the revisional Court found that the Kattha belongs to the firm which is entitled to its interim custody. Then the revisional Court observed that the Kattha is perishable in nature and may diminish in utility and so in the interest of justice it should be release in favour of the applicant. With these findings the revisional Court allowed the revisi