Judgment This is a petition for the release of a lorry belonging to the petitioner which is said to have been seized in connection with an offence under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The lorry was involved in the transport of rosewood and accordingly a case was registered by the forest department in No.6/85-86 before the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur, North Arcot district and the lorry which was seized by the forest department was produced before the Magistrate. Thereupon the petitioner filed a petition praying the Magistrate to return the lorry to her for safe custody and for production whenever required. 2. The Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that under section 42 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), no interim order can be passed by him. 3. As per Section 41 of the Act the Forest officer or a police officer will seize any timber or produce as well as the vehicle used, when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed. Upon such seizure the forest officer is to make a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence as soon as possible. As per section 42, the Magistrate shall take such measures as are necessary upon the receipt of any such report for the trial of the accused and thereafter the disposal of the property according to law. Section 42 further provides that the forest officer shall detain the timber in respect of which an offence has. been committed as well as any instrument used in committing such offence including a vehicle and that the Magistrate shall not pass any interim order regarding the disposal of the timber or the instrument till the case is disposed of. 4. As per section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during the pendency of the trial, the Magistrate has to make such order as he thinks fit for the proper custody of the property pending the conclusion of the trial and if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may order it to be sold or otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. It is clear from the above provision that two courses are open to the Magistrate: (1) to provide for safe custody and (2) to dispose of. This option before the Magistrate becomes open only when the articles are produced before him for custody. As per the provisions of sections 41 and 42 of the Act, it is not necessary for the forest officer to produce the articles seized. He has only to report to the Magistrate and he has himself to ensure the safe custody of the article. But in this case, it seems that the forest officer, for reasons better known to him has chosen not to detain the articles but to hand them over to the Magistrate. The petitioner has unequivocally stated that the lorry was produced before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur, North Arcot district and the same was not denied. The order passed by the Magistrate also would indicate that the lorry was in his possession. 5. Once the article seized is handed over to the Magistrate, the Magistrate has to act as per Section 451 of the Code and then as stated earlier, he has option between two courses. One is to ensure safe custody and another is to dispose of. The last portion of sub-section (2) of section 42 of the Act only prohibits the Magistrate to dispose of the property. Therefore, once the article seized is brought to the Magistrate he has a duty to ensure safe custody and his power regarding safe custody is in tact. For the purpose of ensuring safe custody, the Magistrate can keep the article either himself or to give to any person who to the satisfaction of the Court would ensure the safe custody of the property, which would be necessary for the trial. The lorry, if it is not maintained, will be subject to some deterioration though it is not an article subject to speedy decay. Further, it will not be easy for the Magistrate to ensure the maintenance of the lorry and to keep it free from theft of any part. In the present case, the owner of the lorry offers herself to ensure the safe custody. Further, it will not be easy for the Magistrate to ensure the maintenance of the lorry and to keep it free from theft of any part. In the present case, the owner of the lorry offers herself to ensure the safe custody. Therefore, she appears to be suitable for the purpose of S.451, Crl.P.C. It is therefore, ordered that the lorry be entrusted to the petitioner for safe custody on the following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall give security for an amount of Rs.40, 000 (rupees forty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Magistrate; (2) The petitioner shall not hire the vehicle to any person and for any purpose till the end of the trial; (3) All steps shall be taken by the petitioner to cover by a transparent sheet and to keep in tact the mark which would have been put on the article as per section 41 of the Act by the Officer who seized it and (4) The Magistrate before handing over the lorry shall record that the mark is present and shall indicate the mark to the petitioner so as to enables her to keep it intact.