Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. This application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has its own history. 2. It appears that the opposite party was tried for an offence under Secs. 33 and 42 of the Indian Farest Act under which charge-sheet was submitted and the trial concluded. Ultimately opposite party was acquitted by the judgment of the Trial Court. 3. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the opposite party for release of a larger number of Khair woods alleged to have been seized on the road from a truck which is said to be belonging to the opposite party. 4. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned judgment, dated 24-7-1987 directed release of the seized woods in view of the acquittal of the opposite party and in view of the fact that there was no evidence to show that the said woods were seized from the possession of the prosecution. (The State). 5. The State, thereafter preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, which was ultimately heard by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, who by his order dated 9-8-1988 passed in Cri. Rev. No. 232/45 of 1987 held that the revision was not maintainable as there was a provision for appeal. 6. Mr. K.K. Jha Kamal learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (State) drew my attention to Secs. 56, 69 and 59 of the Indian Forest Act. Sec. 69 of the Indian Forest Act gives a presumption that the forest produce belongs to the State unless the contrary is proved. Sec. 56 makes out a provision for disposal of the forest produce at the conclusion of the Trial and thereafter there is a provision for appeal under Sec. 59 of the said Act from the order of the Magistrate. It was further submitted that these procedures were not adopted by the Learned Magistrate prescribed under Sec. 56 according to which the parties should have adduced evidence also to show possession. But the Revisional Court disposed of the matter in a perfunctory manner simply holding that the revision is not maintainable even without going into the arguments raised on behalf of the State which fact is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment. 7. Mr. But the Revisional Court disposed of the matter in a perfunctory manner simply holding that the revision is not maintainable even without going into the arguments raised on behalf of the State which fact is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment. 7. Mr. S.K. Chattopadhyay learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party on the other hand, submitted that the mistake was committed by the State itself and, therefore, the State cannot be given any benefit and this Court, while exercising powers under Sec. 482, Cr. PC cannot quash both the orders, i.e., the order of the Trial Court and that of the Revisional Court. 8. Special provision has been provided, as stated above, in the Indian Forest Act for dealing with such properties after acquittal. That procedure has not been adopted in this case. Therefore, this matter requires fresh consideration as to whom these properties belonged to, as according to the submission of the State, the, property is worth Rs. 1 (one) lac and it is the forest produce. 9. In the circumstances the order passed by the Trial Court as also the Revisional Court suffers from fatal, infirmity as the mattes has not been disposed of in a proper manner and in accordance with law as provided under the Indian Forest Act for disposal of such forest produce at the conclusion of the trial. 10. In this circumstance I think it expedient in the interest of justice that this matter should be properly considered by the Trial Court after proper enquiry and then the Trial Court will pass necessary orders in accordance with law for the woods seized. 11. In this view of the matter, for securing ends of justice both the orders passed by the Trial Court as welt as the Revisional Court are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for giving fresh decision in accordance with law as noted above. It is expected that on receipt of the record and a copy of this order the learned Magistrate will dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record, and a copy of this order.