JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this revision petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 13-9-1983, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 1983, thereby setting aside the order dated 13-4-1983, passed by the Judicial magistrate, 1st Class, Alirajpur, in Cr. Case No. 0/1983, releasing the Truck No. G. T. K. 4438 on Supratnama, which was seized u/s 52 of the Indian Forest Act hereinafter referred to as the Act.) ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the applicant on 23-1-1983 the empty truck was coming from Chhota-Udaipur in Gujarat to Balavant via Nani-Sadli. On the way it got stranded and all efforts to take it out failed. The driver remained with the vehicle, while others went to Chhota-Udaipur in search of a tractor, which could be hired for taking out the stranded truck. In the meanwhile the Forest authorities of Katthiwada registered a false case and the applicant also lodged a report of theft of the truck at the Police station Chhota-Udaipur in Gujarat. ( 3. ) IN reply to the petitioners application for release of the truck on the above mentioned grounds, the respondent submitted that the truck was seized in connection with two forest offences registered as Crime No. 187/82-83 and 188/82-83, at the office of the Sub-Divisional Officers, Forests, Katthiwada. The allegations were that 112 ballis and 25 Kg of Gond (Resin) was being carried by the applicant, who owns a shop in Balavant in Gujarat. ( 4. ) RESPONDENTs explanation for seizure, as submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, is reproduced below : It was reliably learnt that the applicant had received illegally felled 112 Sagaon Ballis from Tribals. On reaching Balavant, it was learnt that shabbir had carried away the Ballis to village Udi and at village Udi it was found that shabbir had already left after unloading the truck. The Ballis were lying opposite his house. It was further submitted: "in such circumstances the accused could not be arrested, although the whole staff was deployed. Again on information received from informer the staff of Forest department and police force reached village Ghodiadara and found truck No. GTR 4438, with Shabbir and others sitting in the truck. On seeing the party the owner and the driver ran away. The party searched the truck and found gond (resin), about 25 Kg in the cabin kept with intent to transport it. On seeing the party the owner and the driver ran away. The party searched the truck and found gond (resin), about 25 Kg in the cabin kept with intent to transport it. Thus, another crime No. 188/82-83 was registered. Shabbirali was named as the person who indulged in transporting the Resin (Gond ). The truck was seized and brought to the police station Katthiwada. " ( 5. ) THIS is in nutshell the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant. The respondent has denied the allegation that the forest staff removed Rs. 5000/- kept in the truck. An offence registered by the Range Forest Officer, Baria (Gujarat) has also been referred. Search made for the accused applicant proved futile, is yet another fact stated in the reply. ( 6. ) BY order dated 13-4-1983 the Judicial Magistrate, Alirajpur directed the truck to be released on Supratnama on bond of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose. The respondent preferred a revision before the Session Judge, Jhabua, who by order dated 13-9-1983, set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Alirajpur. The main reason assigned by the Sessions Judge in his order is that the truck in question is liable to be Forfeited and could only be returned on completion of the trial. Section 54 of the Act does not provide for interim custody during trial. It is in these circumstances that the present revision petition has been preferred. ( 7. ) SECTION 52 of the Act empowers the Forest or the Police Officer to seize any fores: produce together with all tools, carts or cattle, used in committing any such offence. The Section reads as follows : - "s. 52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation - (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. " Section 52 (2) contemplated making of a report of such seizure by the Forest Officer to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made and Section 54 of the Act provides for the procedure to be followed after receiving such a report. Section 54 reads as follows :- "s. 54. " Section 52 (2) contemplated making of a report of such seizure by the Forest Officer to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made and Section 54 of the Act provides for the procedure to be followed after receiving such a report. Section 54 reads as follows :- "s. 54. Procedure thereupon-Upon the receipt of such report the magistrate shall with all convenient despatch take such measures as may be necessary for the arrest and trial of the offender and the disposal of the property according to law. " Section 2 (3) of the Act defines forest Offence while Section 2 (4) defines forest produce, and there is no dispute about the fact that the timber and resin seized is included in the definition. But a reading of the order passed by the Sessions Judge goes, to show that S. 54 of the Act has been so interpreted as to exclude interim disposal of property. Reading Section 52 (2), along with Section 54 of the Act, it would be clear that such a narrow interpretation, confining disposal of the property in accordance with law to the final disposal, excluding its interim disposal, is not borne out from the wordings of these two Sections. Section 52 (2) reads as follows : "s. 52,. . . . . . . . (1 ). . . . . . (2) Every officer seizing any property under this Section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall, as soon as may be make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made provided that, when the forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be a report of the circumstances to his official superior. " 11 is this report, mentioned in S. 52 (2) of the Act, and upon receipt of such report it is expected of the Magistrate to take such measures with all convenient despatch as may be necessary, either for arrest of the accused so as to meet the situation envisaged by the proviso appended to S. 52 (2) of the Act and to expedite trial of the offender and dispossal of the property according to law. ( 8. ) WHILE considering the question of disposal according to law it would be erroneous to read final disposal. Disposal of property as contemplated by S. 54 of the act, also includes interim disposal of property, subject of course to the final decision. ( 9. ) LEARNED Government Advocate for the State has further contended that the interim disposal had already been done as observed by the Sessions Judge under S. 53 of the Act. Therefore the question of interim disposal of property by the Magistrate would not arise and the Sessions Judge was right in setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. ( 10. ) SECTION 53 of the Act provides : "power to release property seized under S. 52- Any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger who, or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats, carts or cattle under Section 52 may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. " Considering the disposal made in this case, a perusal of the record and particularly the reply filed by the respondent, goes to show that there is a statement to the effect that the truck along with other articles found was given on Suprutnama "but there is no mention to whom the truck was given on Suprutnama nor any such Suprutnama has been produced or at least kept theron. " The report made by the Forest Officer on 24-1-1983 to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Alirajpur while referring to the seizure of the truck in connection with the aforesaid two forest offences, does not make a mention of its being given on suprutnama to any person. " The report made by the Forest Officer on 24-1-1983 to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Alirajpur while referring to the seizure of the truck in connection with the aforesaid two forest offences, does not make a mention of its being given on suprutnama to any person. The order passed under S. 53 of the Act has also not been placed on record. On the other hand, on 20-4-1983 the range Officer submitted yet another report that the truck could not be released as the applicant failed to appear on 19-4-1983. There are certified copies of two telegrams placed by the applicant on record showing that he did appear on 18-4-1983 itself to hand over the order passed by the learned Magistrate which was refused to be taken by the Range Forest Officer. A similar telegram was also addressed to the Divisional forest Officer, Range Officer, Katthiwada; Having submitted the report on 20-4-83, the Range Forest Officer submitted yet another report dated 22-4-1983 stating the circumstances in which the truck in question could not be handed over to Shabbirali. It was also stated that he was ever prepared to comply with the directions of the Court. A panchanama with regard to the refusal on the part of Shabbirali was also drawn and the same has also been placed on record. Thereafter on 26-4-1983 it was intimated to the Court that the truck in question had been handed over to the truck owner shabbirali on 23-4-1983 and it was in pursuance to the order passed by the learned magistrate. ( 11. ) AT one stage was it indicated that any action was taken or order passed under S. 53 of the Act. In the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Sessions judge cannot be allowed to stand. It is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. ( 12. ) THE revision petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Revision allowed.