JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this application under Sections 397 and 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-1-1987 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator-of Forests, Baripada Division rejecting his prayer for interim release of the vehicle, O.R.J. 5074, u/s 57 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Ace). 2. At the commencement of hearing of the case the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the opp. parties raised the question of maintainability of the revision petition and prayed that the point should be decided before going to the merit of the case. Learned Counsel for both parties were heard in extenso on this point. Though some argument was advanced on the grounds of challenge of the impugned order, consideration of the same win depend on answer to' the question of maintainability. 3. The facts relevant for the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus: The Petitioner claims to have purchased the vehicle, a Mini truck, bearing registration No. ORJ 5074 from its registered owner one Sardar Ranjit Singh and he was in possession of the same on 6-9-1986 when it was seized. On that day the vehicle was seized on the allegation that it was found carrying 26 pieces of Piasal sawn and rough dressed and 11 pieces of Piasal planks without bearing Government hammer marks and not accompanied by valid transit permit. On the report of the Forest Range Officer, Chandipur in Balasore district (Report No. 163 Ch, of 1986.87 u/s 56 (2-a) of the Act) before the Divisional Forest Officer, Baripada Division, a case O. R. Case No. 163 Ch, of 1986-87 has been initiated and it is pending before the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Baripada. In the said proceeding the Petitioner filed the application for release of the vehicle which was rejected by the impugned order. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is that a criminal revision does not lie against the order passed by the Authorised Officer under the Act since the jurisdiction exercised by him is not criminal. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the criminal revision has been rightly filed. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is that a criminal revision does not lie against the order passed by the Authorised Officer under the Act since the jurisdiction exercised by him is not criminal. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the criminal revision has been rightly filed. He placed reliance mainly on the division of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V. P. Nagi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1987 Cri L. J. 29, reported in. 5. The short question that arises for consideration is what is the nature of the power .that the Authorised Officer under the Act exercised in a confiscation proceeding. If it is criminal then this revision petition is maintainable, if not the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties is to be accepted. No doubt, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. P. Nagi Reddy's easel (supra) supports the contention of the Petitioner. The Court in that case was considering the relevant provisions u/s 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 which are more or less in pari material with those under Sections 56 to 59 of the Act. The question of maintainability was raised in the appeal filed before the 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool which was registered by the Court as a criminal appeal. The Public Prosecutor took the objection that the appeal could not be registered as a criminal appeal since the power exercised by the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act is of a civil nature. The contention was negatived by the Addl. Sessions Judge and that view was confirmed by the High Court. On careful perusal of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nagi Reddy's easel and on giving my anxious consideration to the matter.. I am not able to accede to the view taken in that case that the power exercise by the authorised officer is criminal in nature. 6. It would be convenient at this stage to note the relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter VIII deals with penalties and procedure. Section 56 which deals with seizure of property liable to confiscation reads as follows: 56. 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.. Chapter VIII deals with penalties and procedure. Section 56 which deals with seizure of property liable to confiscation reads as follows: 56. 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, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest Officer or Police Officer. (2) Every Officer seizing any property under this Section shall place or such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall as soon as may be, except where the offender agrees in writing to get the offence compounded either produce the property seized before an officer not below the tank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or;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 and the Divisional Forest Officer. (2-a) Where an authorised Officer seizes any forest prod rice under Sub-section (1) or where any such forest produce is produced- before him under Sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicle or cattle used in committing such offence. (2-b) No order confiscating any property shall be made under Sub-section (2-a) unless the person from whom the property is seized is given (a) a notice in writing informing him of the ground on which it is proposed to confiscate such property; (b) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation, and (c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2-c) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (2-b), no order of confiscation under sub. (2-c) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (2-b), no order of confiscation under sub. Section (2-a) of any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain boat, vehicle or cattle, in committing the offence and that each of' them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. (2-d) Any forest officer below the rank of a Conservator of Forests empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification, may, within thirty days from the date of the order of confiscation by the authorised officer under Sub-section (2-a), either suo motu or on application, call for and examine the records of the case and may make such inquiry or such inquiry to be made and pass such orders as he may think fit; Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. (2-e) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-section (2-a) or-Sub-section (2-d) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized, and the District Judge shall after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit and the order of the District Judge so passed shall be final. (3) The property seized under this Section shall be kept in the custody of a Forest Officer or with any third party until the compensation for compounding the offence, is paid or until an order of the Magistrate directing its disposal is received. Explanation-For the purposes of this Section and Section 59, cattle shall not include buffaloes, bulls, cows, calves and oxen. Explanation-For the purposes of this Section and Section 59, cattle shall not include buffaloes, bulls, cows, calves and oxen. Section 57 vests power in any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Range Officer who or whose subordinate has seized any tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle u/s 56 and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of that Section to release the same an the execution by the .owner thereof a bond far the production of the property so released, if and when 5.0 required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the .offence an account of which the seizure has been made. u/s 58, it is provided that upon the receipt .of any such report, the Magistrate shall, except where the offence has been compounded, with all convenient despatch, take such measures as may be necessary for the arrest and trial of offender and the disposal .of the property according to law. According to the provisions u/s 59, all timber or forest produce which is not the property of Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, and all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattles used in committing any forest offence shall be liable to confiscation unless an order of confiscation has already been passed in respect thereof u/s 56. Such confiscation may be in addition to any other punishment provided for such offence. 7. From the provisions discussed above it is abundantly clear that the statute provides for two separate proceedings before distinct and separate authorities, the departmental officer, that is, the Authorised Officer empowered to deal with confiscation proceeding under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act and the Magistrate. The Authorised Officer while dealing with a confiscation proceeding and an application far interim release .of the vehicle in such proceeding discharges statutory power vested in him under the provisions .of the Act. The proceeding is intended to provide deterrent measures to check commission of forest offences. Such power, it is clear from the provisions of the Act, is in addition to the power .of the criminal Court to try the culprit for commission of .offences and also to pass order far confiscation of the forest produce as well as tools, vehicles etc. in respect .of which such offence has been committed. Such power, it is clear from the provisions of the Act, is in addition to the power .of the criminal Court to try the culprit for commission of .offences and also to pass order far confiscation of the forest produce as well as tools, vehicles etc. in respect .of which such offence has been committed. It cannot therefore be said that the power exercised by the authorized Officer in such proceeding is of criminal nature. To hold that the Authorised Officer while dealing with a confiscation proceeding acts as another forum exercising criminal jurisdiction will in my view, go against the Scheme of the Act as discussed above. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court laid stress on the fact that against the decision of the Authorised Officer appeal lay to the 'District Court'. Therefore, the learned Judge referring to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to hold that 'District Court' in the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act means Court of Session of which the Presiding Officer is the 'District and Sessions Judge'. This anomaly is not present in the Orissa Forest Act wherein u/s 56 (2-a), appeal against an order under Sub-section (2-a) or Sub-section (2-d) lies to the 'District Judge' and not to the 'District Court'. In my view, it is a special jurisdiction vested in him under the statute and to be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. 8. In taking the above view, I have drawn support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and Another Vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and Others where the Court on interpretation of relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 observed as follows: A close, careful and combined reading of the various Sub-sections of Section 44" Section 45 and Section 58-A of the Act as introduced or amended by Act 17 of 1975 leaves no doubt that the intendment of the Legislature was to provide for two separate proceedings before two different forums and there is no conflict of jurisdiction as Section 45, as amended by the Amendment Act in terms curtails the power conferred on the Magistrate to direct confiscation of timber of forest produce on conviction of the accused. The conferral of power of confiscation of seized timber of forest produce and the implements etc. The conferral of power of confiscation of seized timber of forest produce and the implements etc. on the Authorised Officer under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act on his being satisfied that a forest offence had been committed in respect thereof, is not dependant upon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of a forest offence has been launched against the offender or not. It is a separate and distinct proceeding from that of a trial before the Court for commission of an offence. Under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act, there a Forest Officer makes a report of a seizure of any timber or forest produce and produces the seized timber before the authorised officer alongwith a report u/s 44 (2.), the authorised officer can direct confiscation to Government of such timber or forest produce and the implements etc.. If he is satisfied that a forest .offence has been committed, irrespective of the fact whether the accused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for the commission of a forest offence u/s 20 or 29 of the Act. From the observations quoted above, it is abundantly clear that the power of confiscation vested in the Authorised Officer under the Act is to be treated as a proceeding distinct and separate from a criminal prosecution against the accused before the Magistrate for the same acts or conduct. In the case of Sarat Kumar Malu Vs. State of Orissa my learned brother C. B. Patnaik, J. on analysis of the provisions of Sections 56 to 62 under Chapter VIII of the Act and relying on the decision of the 'Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v, Smt. Haji Begum and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1216 of 1979, held as follows: An analysis of the aforesaid provisions of the Act would clearly show that the Legislature has provided for all contingencies regarding disposal of the properties seized in connection with the commission of any forest offence. The provisions aforesaid are more or less in pari materia with the provisions contained in Chapter XXXIV of the Code. The question now, therefore, remains to be considered as to whether the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts under Chapter XXXIV of the Code must be held to be excluded because of the Legislature making necessary provisions in that regard in Chapter VIII of the Act... The question now, therefore, remains to be considered as to whether the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts under Chapter XXXIV of the Code must be held to be excluded because of the Legislature making necessary provisions in that regard in Chapter VIII of the Act... xx xx xx Thus it is abundantly dear from the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the power to pass orders regarding disposal of the seized property lies with the authorities under the Forest Act and not with the Court by invoking the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view, therefore, when any forest produce together with the vehicle used in committing any forest offence is seized by any Forest Officer in exercise of his powers u/s 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, then the power to release the property seized lies with the authorities prescribed in the four corners of the provisions of the Forest Act and not with a Magistrate in exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. On the discussions and for the reasons set out in the foregoing paragraph, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the power exercised by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Baripada in dealing with his application for interim release of the vehicle as provided u/s 57 of the Act is criminal and could be challenged by filing an application under Sections 397, 401 or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. I, therefore, hold that this application is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. It is however open to the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order in an appropriate proceeding. . In view of my finding on the question of maintainability it is unnecessary to go into the questions relating to merit. Final Result : Dismissed