JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner is the owner of a truck bearing registration number O.R.B.7598. On 31.3.1988 during night as the truck was found to be involved in commission of certain offences under the Orissa Forest Act, inasmuch as certain timber was found to have been transported without any valid permit under the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1910, the truck was seized and a report of the factum of seizure was made to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. A criminal case was instituted being G.R. Case No. 200 of 1988 u/s 379, Indian Penal Codes, and Section 27 of the Orissa Forest Act as well as for violation of Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. The Petitioner then filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for release of the truck to his custody. The learned Magistrate by order dated 5.4.1988 rejected the said application on a finding that he had no jurisdiction to pass any order of release The Petitioner then carried a revision to the learned Sessions Judge who by order dated 19.4.1988 set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the matter force-disposal by the learned Magistrate. In the meantime, the truck in question was delivered to the Authorised Officer who has initiated a proceeding for confiscation under the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act. Because of the pendency of the confiscation proceeding before the Authorised Officer and because of the fact of delivery of the truck to the Authorised Officer, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that Section 56 of the Act could apply and accordingly he did not pass any order for releasing the truck in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner again carried a revision to the learned Sessions Judge, but the learned Sessions Judge having affirmed the order of the Magistrate, the Petitioner has approached' this Court. 2. There cannot be any manner of doubt, particularly in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sarat Kumar Malu Vs. State of Orissa that the truck having been seized by the police officer and the same being reported to the Magistrate and particularly when a criminal case has been instituted, the Magistrate had the jurisdiction when the Petitioner approached him for the release of the vehicle. State of Orissa that the truck having been seized by the police officer and the same being reported to the Magistrate and particularly when a criminal case has been instituted, the Magistrate had the jurisdiction when the Petitioner approached him for the release of the vehicle. But in view of subsequent change of events, namely that the truck has in the meantime been delivered to the Authorised officer and a proceeding for confiscation has already been started, without deciding the question as to whether the Magistrate still retains the jurisdiction in him or not, we think it appropriate that the Petitioner should approach the Authorised Officer under the Orissa Forest Act for getting interim custody of the vehicle in question. Section 57 of the Orissa Forest Act fully empowers the Authorised Officer to release the seized vehicle on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for production of the same. The Petitioner would not be in any way prejudiced by making an application to the Authorised Officer who is already in seisin of the matter and the confiscation proceeding is pending before him. If an application is made by the Petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer u/s 57 of the Act, the said Authorised Officer may dispose of the same within two weeks from the receipt of the application in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ application is disposed of No costs. A.K. Padhi, J. 3. I agree.