( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred by the applicant against the rejection of his application under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for release of the seized truck on his Supratnama by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

( 2 ) THE facts not in dispute are that on the night intervening 29/30 June 1982 the applicant was carrying six logs of teak wood covered with Gittis in his truck No. MSJ from the forest area to Jabalpur when the truck was intercepted by the forest officers, north Mandla Division, and the truck was seized under section 5 of M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam ). The truck was seized within 3 to 4 kilometers of village Kohni which came within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jabalpur. There were about 8 to 10 passengers in the truck followed by the applicant in his jeep. Six logs of teak wood did not bear any hammer marks nor the applicant possessed any transit pass. Preliminary offence report was prepared. The statements of the passengers and also that of the applicant were taken. The applicant admitted that the logs were illicitly cut from the forest area and were being taken to Jabalpur. Report of the seizure was made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla. The applicant appeared before the Divisional Forest Officer, North Mandla Division, and expressed his desire to compound the offence and executed composition document which was accepted by the D. F. O. The applicant was then given a notice on 3-7-1982 by the D. F. 0. as to why the truck should not be confiscated under section 19 of the Adhiniyam and offered to release the same on payment of rupees one lac towards its price. The applicant did not reply to the show cause notice and by order dated 7-7-1982 the D. F. 0. imposed composition fee of Rs. 500/- on the applicant, confiscated the truck and ordered its release on payment of price of rupees one lac. There after the applicant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla, for release of the truck but it was withdrawn after realising that the seizure was within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, and another application was moved before him on 17-8-82. The application was opposed by the forest authorities saying that the applicant has no right to apply for release of the truck under section 457 after composing the offence. Besides, the criminal Court has no power to sit in judgment over the order of the D. F. C. and in support two Single Bench decisions of this Court were cited. It was also contended that since seizures were not by police officer, section 457 has no application. Accepting the contentions of the Forest Department, the learned C. 3. N. held that (i) the application under section 457 is not maintainable as the seizure was not by a police officer and (U) in view of the composition of the offence by the applicant and the two decisions of this Court, the criminal Court cannot sit in judgment over the order of the D. F. 0. and his remedy lies elsewhere.

( 3 ) WE have, therefore, to see (i) whether the seizure by the forest authorities of the truck in question under the Adhiniyam can attract section 457 of the Code, and (U) what is the effect of the composition of the offence?

( 4 ) THE Adhiniyam is a self contained Code. This Adhiniyam has been enacted for regulating in the public interest trade of certain forest produce by creation of State monopoly in such trade. Admittedly, teak wood is a specified forest produce and the Adhiniyam has been made applicable to Mandla district. Section 2 is a definition clause and sub-clause (g) provides that words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Indian Forest Act, 1927, shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act. Section 5 imposes restrictions on purchase or transport of forest produce and no person other than the State Government or its officers or its agents can pur