JUDGMENT The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 18.1.1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 1/92 against the order of Supratnama dated 11.10.1991, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, in Crime No. 102412 of 1991. In this petition, the only point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the truck in dispute was seized by the police and the trial Magistrate had accordingly ordered delivery of the said truck to the applicant on Supurdgi but on revision by the non-applicants before the lower revisional Court that order has been reversed on the ground that an intimation was received by the trial Court for confiscation of the said truck under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, no such intimation was received by the trial Court and the findings of the lower revisional Court in that behalf are wrong and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the non-applicants vehemently opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the order passed by the lower revisional Court is correct, legal and valid being based on documents on record. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record of the trial Court, which has been requisitioned in this case, I am of the opinion that the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant are devoid of any force and the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The applicant, along with this revision petition, has filed notice dated 2.11.1991 (Annexure A-4) given to the applicant by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mandla, under section 15 (5) B of the Madhya Pradesh Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1987, for confiscation of 19 pieces of Sagaull logs admeasuring 0.682 Cubic Meters and the truck No. M.P. A. 2891. The applicant has also filed copy of her reply dated 13.11.1991 (Annexure A-5). The applicant has also filed copy of her reply dated 13.11.1991 (Annexure A-5). The lower revisional Court in the impugned order has reproduced the provisions of section 15 (c) of the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1986 (Act 15 of 1987) and section 52 (c) of the Indian Forest Act, and after discussing various rulings on the point in dispute, has held in paragraph 13 of the order that a perusal of the record of the learned Magistrate makes it very clear that on the next day of the seizure of the - truck i.e. 25.9.1991, the D.F.O. has given information to the learned Magistrate under section 52 (c) of the Indian Forest Act about the initiation of the confiscation proceedings of the seized truck. That intimation very well finds place in the record of the learned Magistrate. Because of this, the revision was allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside; and the Supratnama furnished by the applicant was cancelled. It was further directed that the applicant in the present case shall deliver the truck to the non- applicant for disposal according to law. In the record of the lower Court, there is a remand form dated 25.9.1991 in connection with Crime No. 1024/2 dated 24.9.1991, at page 6, submitted by the in-charge, Forest office, for remand and the learned A.C.J.M. had granted remand in 1991. At pages 8 and 9 of the record, there are printed forms for confiscation of the truck and the property under section 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act read with section 15 (5) (a) of the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam. At page 10, there is also a remand form dated 27.9.1991 submitted by the Range Officer, Barala, along with these papers, on which remand was granted upto 9.10.1991. Again at page 11, I find another remand form, on which remands was granted upto 23.10.1991 by the A.C.J.M. At pages 12and 13, there are again remand forms, on which remands were granted upto 11.11.1991 and 11.12.1991 respectively. Consequently, there are number of remand forms and the remand has been granted by the learned A.C.J .M. till 20.1.1992. The remand is not sought by the police officer but by a forest officer. Consequently, there are number of remand forms and the remand has been granted by the learned A.C.J .M. till 20.1.1992. The remand is not sought by the police officer but by a forest officer. Yet I find a letter No. 677 dated 3.10.1991 written by the Divisional Forest Officer addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, submitting that the proceedings of confiscation of the truck No. M.P.A. 2891 have already been started and the said truck be handed over to them. Inspite of this letter, the truck was ordered to be given to the applicant on 11.10.1991, though the earlier ordersheet dated 9.10.1991 shows that the remand of the accused-applicant was taken by the Forest Department till 23.10.1991 on the ground that the investigation is still going on. Before remand form, on which remand is granted upto 23.10.1991 I find printed form giving intimation to the Magistrate under section 52 (4) (a) of the Indian Forest Act for confiscation of the truck and the seized logs. In view of this, it seems that the learned Magistrate overlooked these papers and the learned lower revisional Court was right in holding that the intimation very well finds place in the record of the learned Magistrate. But the learned Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that no such information was given to the Court. Consequently, the findings arrived at by the learned lower revisional Court cannot be said to be perverse. No interference in revision petition is called for. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Lower Court record be sent back to the concerned Magistrate immediately.