1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.12.88 passed by the lower Court on a revision preferred by the State challenging the delivery of the seized wood to the petitioner under the direction of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lateri.

2. The house of the petitioner was searched on 14.11.86 by the Forest Department Officials and certain quantity of wood on the suspicion of the commission of forest offence was seized. It is contended that as no further action was taken by the Forest Department against the petitioner in relation to the seized wood, the petitioner had moved an application under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the return of the seized wood to him.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class issued the notice of the application to the department. Thereupon the Forest Department had filed the photostat copies of the documents along with a representation in the Court. Thereafter the evidence was directed to be adduced. None had appeared for the Forest Department and the petitioner alone filed some documents. The Magistrate on 26.7.88 held that although the stated wood was seized by the officials of the Forest Deptt. (not by the