JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J. - This Revision Petition under section 497 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (to be referred hereinafter as the Code) arises out of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Simla, in Criminal Appeal No. 41-S/10 of 1987 decided on 27-1-1989 thereby confirming the order of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog, dated 25-11-1986 in case No. 148/1 of 1983. The petitioner has a grievance against this order. Hence this petition. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were prosecuted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is alleged that on 19-11-1982, Kedar Singh, Inspector C.I D., was present at Kotkhai in connection with some investigation. He got information that the accused had illicitly felled trees from the Government land A raiding party was formed in which forest as well as revenue officials were associated and the party went to the spot at Jalath Nallah. The land of the accused was demarcated and it was found that 34 trees of Kail and 14 trees of Deodar had been illicitly felled by the accused from their own land and 5 trees of Deodar and Kail were found to have been illicitly felled by the accused from the Government land. During the course of investigation, 86 Karis and planks of Deodar and Kail were taken into possession by the police from the field of the accused and the nallah and were handed over on Sapurdari to Shri Prem Singh, Block Officer. 250 scants and bailies of desdar and 61 scants and bailies were also recovered and seized by the police from the road-side at Domehar which were also handed over on Sapurdari to Block Officer, Shri Prem Singh. However, the case of the prosecution is that the accused had felled trees without getting any permission of the Forest Department and mixed the timber felled from the own land with the timber illicitly felled from the Government land. It is also the prosecution case that the accused transported 250 scants of deodar and 61 scants of Kail from Jalath Nailah to Domehar Road-side without any pass or permit from the Forest Department. It is also the prosecution case that the accused transported 250 scants of deodar and 61 scants of Kail from Jalath Nailah to Domehar Road-side without any pass or permit from the Forest Department. The trial commenced and the same ended in the acquittal of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences However, relating to the disposal of the case property, the trial court ordered the confiscation thereof to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. The petitioner assailed this order by way of appeal before the Sessions Judge, Simla, but the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment. This is how the present petition has come before this court. 4. Shri K. D Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has very seriously contended that the judgment under revision deserves to be set-aside as the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Elaborating his submissions, he urges that the trial court did not hold any inquiry while passing the order under section 452 of the Code relating to the disposal of the case property on the conclusion of the trial. I am not impressed by this submission of Shri K. D. Sood. In my opinion, order under section 452 of the Code is passed on the termination of the inquiry, trial or proceedings before a Court. It is passed consequent to the decision of the main case. For passing an order relating to the disposal of the case property, there is no need to examine witnesses and to hold an elaborate inquiry. For arriving at a decision, the court looks at and examines the facts and the evidence already before it in the main case. Similar views were expressed in 1979 Cr LJ 428, Govindachari v. State and another. 5. Shri K. D. Sood further contended that the trial court having acquitted the petitioner, it was but natural that the case property seized from the petitioner is returned to him. Equally unimpressive is this submission of the learned Counsel. It is a general rule that when a property is seized from a person and he is acquitted of the charge, the property should be returned to him. Equally unimpressive is this submission of the learned Counsel. It is a general rule that when a property is seized from a person and he is acquitted of the charge, the property should be returned to him. However, it is subject to the several exceptions depending on the circumstances of each case and no accused person can claim, as of right, that the property seized from him should be returned to him AIR 1965 Orissa 198, Arjun Padhy and others v. State of Orissa and another, 6. In AIR 1958 Madhya Pradesh 270, Prakash Chander Jain v. Jagdish and another, the Court said in paras 5 and 6 of the judgment as under : "(5) Ordinarily when no offence has been committed, in respect of any property in its custody, the Court should restore it to the person from whose possession it was seized. But in exceptional case, where circumstances so warrant and the evidence so indicate that it would be inequitable to restore it to the possession of the person from whom it was seized, the Court may in the proper exercise of its judicial discretion restore it to a person who in its opinion is the person best entitled to its possession. It was therefore held by Hemeon J. in Joharilal v. King-Emperor, ILR (1948) Nag. 948 : AIR 1949 Nag. 17 (B) that: "When an accused is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of theft, it cannot be said that he was necessarily in lawful possession of the property which was the subject-matter of the theft and he is not, therefore, entitled to recover the property under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code." (6) In the instant case, even though the non-applicant has been acquitted, due to incomplete evidence, it would not be proper exercise of discretion to hand over the property back to the accused because the confession recorded in the memo. Ex. P. 16 though not admissible in the criminal trial would be admissible for the purpose of determining who would be the person best entitled to the possession of the seized property.” 7. In view of the concurrent judgments of the courts below, it is not necessary to scan and reiterate the evidence which has already been done twice. However, the examination thereof indicates that the petitioner has cut trees not only from his private land but also from the Government land. In view of the concurrent judgments of the courts below, it is not necessary to scan and reiterate the evidence which has already been done twice. However, the examination thereof indicates that the petitioner has cut trees not only from his private land but also from the Government land. Thereafter the same were mixed up and carried from the place of occurrence. So far as the trees pertaining to his own land are concerned, the petitioner has cut the same without the permission of the Government and against the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978 read with the Rules made there under. The trial court acquitted the petitioner on the ground of inadequate evidence on the question of the trees having been felled and removed by the petitioner from the Government land and that there was no evidence that the petitioner transported the timber or scants to his own field situate near Jalath Nallah and also to the place on road side at Domehar. The petitioner has not, during the trial at any stage, claimed the ownership of this propeaty. Even during the course of examination under section 313 of the Code, he accused has not explained that the property in question is owned by him. The court has not also felt that the property in question belongs to the petitioner and the petitioner had the permission to cut and transport the same from the Forest Department It may not have been proved that the accused cut the trees in question and transported the same to the places where the same were ultimately found, but that does not mean that the trees have not been cut from the Government Forest and that the same belongs to the petitioner when the petitioner has not, at all, asserted the ownership thereof during the trial of this case. Even the perusal of the statements of various witnesses produced in this case by the prosecution indicate that the property belongs to the Government. It is relevant to refer to section 69 of the Indian Forest Act: "When in any proceedings taken under this Act, or in consequence of anything done under this Act, a question arises as to whether any forest-produce is the property of the Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the Government until the contrary is proved." 8. Referring to the above provision, Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, submits that there is presumption that the forest produce belongs to the Government and the accused has failed to rebut this presumption. He further contends that some unscrupulous persons, like the accused, have played havoc to the forests in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is very common, he asserts, that such people cut large number of trees illicitly alongwith the permitted trees and thereby cause not only loss to the State revenue but finish the forests leading to global ecological problems. 9. There is force in these submissions of the learned Assistant Advocate General. Such a conduct on the part of the people concerned with forest offences is very common and forests have to be very carefully looked after and guarded from such like activities of these unscrupulous people. 10. Article 48-A of the Constitution envisages as under: "48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life,—The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country." 11. Further, by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Part-IV-A, relating to Fundamental Duties of every citizen of India, has been inserted to the Constitution of India. The relevant part of the same envisages as under: "51 A. Fundamental duties.—It shall be the duty of every citizen of India— * * * * * * * ? (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures ; * * ? * 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.-