ORDER S.K. Dubey, J.-- 1. State has preferred this revision against the order dated 11.10.1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 1990, whereby the truck No. UTP 6276, seized by the Police, Pichhore, carrying 80 bags of tendu leaves, without transit pass, was directed to be released on Supurdgi. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision are these. On the information received that the truck No. UTP 6276 is carrying 80 bags of tendu leaves, a forest produce, without transit pass, the Polict: seized the truck on 15.8.1990, at 12.30 p.m., seizure memo was prepared, the driver Rakesh was also taken to custody, a case was registered at Crime No. 139 of 1990 under section 379, IPC and sections 5, 7 and 8 of the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1964, for short, 1964 Adhiniyam, of Police Station Pichhore. After the seizure of the truck, the Police vide letter dated 17.8.1990 intimated the Range Officer, Shivpuri, to take action to confiscate the truck as an offence under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, for short, the 'Forest Act' .was committed and sent the copies of F.I.R. and seizure memo. The Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Shivpuri, on 20.8.1990, sent an intimation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the seized property, that is truck No. UTP 6276 and 80 bags of tendu leaves. The respondent was noticed of the initiation of the said proceedings for confiscation, but he did not appear on 15.10.1990 inspite of notice dated 1.10.1990. Therefore, the Deputy D.F.O. proceeded ex-parte and found proved an offence under sections 41 and 52 of the Forest Act as also under section 5 of the 1964 Adhiniyam. In-between, after initiation of the proceedings, the respondent filed an application under sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Cr.P.C.', in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pichhore, for the custody of the seized truck. After the report of the Range Officer, the application was rejected as the truck was seized under section 52 of the Forest Act, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to direct the custody of the truck. After the report of the Range Officer, the application was rejected as the truck was seized under section 52 of the Forest Act, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to direct the custody of the truck. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, also directed that a letter be issued to the Range Officer that the seized property was also case property of the offence under section 379 IPC, therefore, till the decision of the case, the case property be not disposed of. Aggrieved of this order, the respondent preferred a revision. The Sessions Judge while allowing the revisiort, observed that it is doubtful whether the truck is liable to confiscation or not and, thus directed the release of the truck on Supurdgi of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 3. Shri M.K. Jain, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State and Shri Anil Mishra, counsel for the respondent were heard. Papers produced relating to the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation against the respondent and of confiscation were perused. 4. Initially, the truck was seized by the Police Officer, who registered a case under section 379 IPC and sections 5, 6 and 7 of the 1964 Adhiniyam. Later, the Police sent the information to proceed against the respondent to initiate confiscation proceedings of the vehicle in question under section 52 of the Forest Act. The Authorised Officer, upon receipt of report about the seizure, initiated the proceedings for confiscation of the seized property and sent the intimation to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure was made of initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property and also issued notice to the respondent from whom the truck was seized and after giving an opportunity to the respondent of making a representation and also of hearing, directed the confiscation of the property under section 52 (3), as substituted by the (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1983 (No. 25 of 1983) in the Forest Act. In such circumstances, though the case was also registered under section 379, IPC, the question that arises for decision is whether in view of section 52-C, inserted in the Forest Act by the M.P. Amendment, the Sessions Judge was empowered to direct the custody of the truck being given in Supurdgi. To deal with the question, it would be appropriate to refer section 52 and 52-C, which' are extracted: "52. To deal with the question, it would be appropriate to refer section 52 and 52-C, which' are extracted: "52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure thereof - (1) When there is a reason to believe a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with all tools, boats, vehicles, chains or any other article 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 on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or where it is, having regard to quantity or bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce property seized before the authorised officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorised officer, or where it is intended to breach criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, 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 the 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. (3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorised officer upon production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, may be by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate forest produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence. A copy of order of confiscation shall be forwarded without any undue delay to the Conservator of Forests of the forest circle in which the timber or forest produce, as the case may be, has been seized. A copy of order of confiscation shall be forwarded without any undue delay to the Conservator of Forests of the forest circle in which the timber or forest produce, as the case may be, has been seized. (4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-section (5) unless the authorised officer n (a) sends an intimation in form prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscating of property to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issue a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorised officer to have some interest in such property; (c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation; and (d) gives to the officer affecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause 'b), a hearing on date to be fixed for such purpose. (5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article (other than timber or forest produce seized shall be made if person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorised officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance or as the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence.' , *** "52-C. Bar to jurisdiction of Court etc, under certain circumstances.-(1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of sections 52 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property by the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject-matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and Court of Session referred to in sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under section 52, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained, in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force. Explanation.-Where under any law for the time being in force, two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try forest offence, then receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 by one of the Courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall effect the power saved under section 61." . 5. A bare reading of section 52-C shows that when the forest produce and the vehicle is seized in commission of a forest offence, and the proceedings for confiscation are initiated of which an intimation has been received under section 52 (4) of the Forest Act, about initiation of proceedings for confiscation by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and the Court of Sessions referred in sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal of distribution of the property. 6. 6. In the case of Kanhaiyalal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1988 JLJ 94 ), this Court has taken the view that where a truck is not seized by the Police, but by the forest officer and it. has not been produced before a Magistrate, and the intimation about the initiation of confiscation proceedings of the property in question from the Forest Department under sub-section (4) of section 52, as substituted by M.P. Amendment in the Forest Act is received by the Magistrate having the jurisdiction to try the offence, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to make any orders with regard to disposal etc. of the seized property under section 451, Cr.P.C. is ousted in view of section 52-C, inserted in the Forest Act by the M.P. Amendment. 7. In the case of Rishi Nath Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1992 MPLJ 159 ), where a truck was seized by the Forest Department carrying various forest produce of which a report was lodged in the concerned Police Station and a case was registered under sections 353 and 186 read with section 34, IPC, in view of the bar of section 52-C, as inserted by the State Amendment, this Court, placing reliance on Kanhaiyalal's case (supra) and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Babulal Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1987 JLJ 423 ) has held that the legal proceedings to acquire the vehicle on supurdgi under section 451/457, Cr.P.C., were not saved after initimation of initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the seized truck under the provisions of the Forest Act. Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal and decide the application after initiation of the proceedings under section 52 of the Forest Act, the jurisdiction is barred under section 52-C. 8. In case of Range Forest Officer v. Rodilal (1987 Cri.L.J. 1314), this Court has taken the view that the bar of jurisdiction is lifted only under section 52-B (2) of the Forest Act, when the Court of Session hears the revision against the order of Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal against the order of confiscation passed under section 52. 9. In case of Range Forest Officer v. Rodilal (1987 Cri.L.J. 1314), this Court has taken the view that the bar of jurisdiction is lifted only under section 52-B (2) of the Forest Act, when the Court of Session hears the revision against the order of Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal against the order of confiscation passed under section 52. 9. In the case of State of M.P. v. Kunwarlal (1994-I-MPWN-48) wherein a tractor-trolly, bearing No. CPC-9205, loaded with stone-slabs, was seized by the Forest Authorities under the provisions of section 52 of the Forest Act (M.P. Amendment) and that, intimation about this seizure, was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and the Magistrate concerned rejected the application under section 457; Cr.P.C. in view of section 52-C and the revision was allowed by the Sessions Judge, this Court held that after perusal of sections 52; 52-A, 52-B and 52-C of the Forest Act (as amended by M.P. Amendment), the order of Sessions Judge under section 457, Cr.P.C. is patently illegal. 10. Recently, this Court in an unreported decision (Cr. Revision No. 59 of 1989, Ashok Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13.4.1994), following the decision in Kanhaiyalal's case (supra) has taken the same view. 11. Therefore, the seizure of the truck by the Police Officer for the forest offence coupled with the offence under Penal Code or any other enactment, in the opinion of this Court, will not make any difference after the intimation of initiation of proceedings under section 52 (4) of confiscation and the jurisdiction will stand ousted of the Magistrate concerned to deal with the subject-matter so seized for passing the order of interim or final custody under the provisions of section 451 and 457, CLP.C. The person against whom the proceedings are initiated has to satisfy the Authorised Officer, that the property so seized is not liable to be confiscated. If order of confiscation is made, such person has to resort to the remedy of appeal and then revision before the Sessions Judge where the jurisdiction under section 52-C (1) is conferred. See, Case of Range Forest Officer v. Rodilai (supra). 12. If order of confiscation is made, such person has to resort to the remedy of appeal and then revision before the Sessions Judge where the jurisdiction under section 52-C (1) is conferred. See, Case of Range Forest Officer v. Rodilai (supra). 12. The two decisions relied on in the case of Bhagwanbhai v. Van Mandal Adhikari (1985 WN 44) and in State of M.P. v. Banshilal (1991-I-MPWN-118) have no application as in those cases the proceedings for confiscation were not initiated, nor any intimation was sent to that effect. 13. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, for a forest offence, the vehicle can be seized either by the Forest Officer or the Police Officer and if the proceedings are initiated by the authorised officer for confiscation and of that intimation is sent, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned or the Sessions Judge to pass orders under section 451 and 457, Cr.P.C. will stand ousted. In view of this, the order of the Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 14. However, is view of the facts that the respondent was granted supurdgi and he did not take part in the proceedings under section 52 (2) and remained exparte, because of the order passed in his favour and now the limitation of filing of an appeal against the order of confiscation has elapsed, it will be unjust not to allow the opportunity to the respondent to challenge the order of confiscation either by way of filing an appeal under the Forest Act or to make an appropriate application before the authorised officer to give him an opportunity of hearing. If the respondent moves an appropriate application or files an appeal within thirty days from today, the application or the appeal, as the case may be, shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondent and for that purpose, plea of limitation will not come in the way of the respondent. 15. In the matter, the revision is allowed in the light of the observation made above.