The Magistrate has the power to release the seized vehicle during inquiry or trial, subject to the condition that the same will be produced by the person in whose custody it is released at the time of the decision of the case or as and when required by court during trial.

K.N.Misra, J.

1. A joint application was moved by the revisionists Ravi shankar and Smt. Inderjeet Kaur for the release: of truck No. UTE 7959 on the ground that there is no provision for seizure of the truck and fire-wood loaded hereon, under the Forest Act. This application has been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate 1st, Bahraich, vide order dated 25-2-1983. Aggrieved by this order he revisionists preferred this revision.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a report dated 7-2-83 was submitted to the Court by one Ram Daras Singh, Forestor, Chandra Range, P. S. Nawabganj, district Bahraich. It was stated that on 5-2-83 at about 4 A. M. truck No. UTE 7959 was seized by him while it was carrying wood said to have been illegally felled and removed from the reserve forest. There were no valid papers for the transportation of the wood which was loaded on the aforesaid truck at the time it was apprehended, and stopped. It is alleged that two persons, viz. Kripa Ram and Sabit Ram scaped after jumping from the said truck but two other persons could not escape. They were apprehended. One of the apprehended persons namely Ravi Shankar applicant, claimed to be Driver of the truck while the other person, namely, Jeet Bahadur Singh claimed to be Cleaner of the truck. They were arrested at the spot and were handed over at police station Nawabganj where the first information report was lodged.

In this application for release of truck Ravi Shankar claimed release of the truck being Driver of the truck, and Smt. Inderjeet Kaur claimed to be owner of the same. Ravi Shankar claimed to be engaged in transporting the fuel wood at the instance of the Contractor Kripa Ram from Nanpara to Nawabganj and there was proper transit pass for transporting the wood. The affidavit accompanying said application was, however, not verified as has been observed in the impugned order. The applicant also filed photo-stat copy of the alleged transit pass and the bill form. The application was contested on behalf of the Forest Department and it was alleged that the said truck loaded with fuel wood was caught on 5-2-83 at about 4 a. m. in Nimnihara Forest outpost. The truck was coming from inside the forest area. It was further alleged that movement of truks to and from the reserve forest area could not be made before sun rise and after sunset. It was further alleged that the alleged transit pass is a forged paper. The transit passes are issued only for the period from sun rise to sunset and can be used during that period for transporting wood from the reserve forest area. The name of the Contractor Kripa Ram was also not mentioned in the transit pass and besides that the name of other Contractor Abdul Shami was mentioned. It was further alleged that the alleged pass is only for persons who take auction in lots and there is no property mark on the wood in question. It was further stated that the release application for the truck has not been given by its owner. Apprehension was also shown that if the truck is released, which is liable for disposal at the time of final decision of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the seized truck cannot be confiscated as there is nothing on the record to indicate that it was used in committing a forest offence, in respect of any forest produce. He referred to section 52 of the Indian Forest Art and contended that when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce then in that event such produce together with the vehicle used for committing such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or police officer. Learned counsel contended that in the present case seizure of the truck was itself illegal because it is not established that any forest offence was committed in respect of any "forest produce". This argument is not available to the revisionists at this stage because evidence has yet to be recorded in the case and during trial i