JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — Petitioner’s Mini Truck bearing registration number OR-05-H-1869 has been seized and a confiscation proceeding has been initiated on the aollegation that the Truck was carrying timber illegally on the basis of forged documents. The petitioner filed an application before the Conservator of Forests for re¬lease of the Mini Truck. The Conservator directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Athgarh Division, to release the truck on fur¬nishing cash security of Rs. 50,000/- and bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a further direction to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Authorised Officer. It was further directed that the petitioner should not change the colour and registration number of the vehicle without knowledge of the Divisional Forest Officer, Athgarh. Since the vehicle was not released in spite of such direction, an application was filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Forest Officer, Athgarh. The Divisional Forest Officer replied to the petitioner that a request had been made to the Conservator of Forests to review/reconsider the earlier order dated 6.5.2000 and further follow-up action would be taken after disposal by the Conservator of such request made by the Division¬al Forest Officer. It further appears that thereafter the peti¬tioner has filed an objection before the Conservator of Forests stating that there is no provision for review of any earlier order and as such the previous order passed by the Conservator should be enforced. However, since the matter had remained pend¬ing before the forest authorities for a long period, the peti¬tioner has filed this writ application seeking for a direction to reduce the security deposit (both cash and bank guarantee) and to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government purportedly represented through the Conservator of Forests. In the counter affidavit it has been indicated that confiscation proceeding has been initiated which is pending before the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Athgarh. It is further indicated that the Conservator of Forests had passed the earlier order on the basis of a bona fide mistake. 3. In the counter affidavit it has been indicated that confiscation proceeding has been initiated which is pending before the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Athgarh. It is further indicated that the Conservator of Forests had passed the earlier order on the basis of a bona fide mistake. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle having been seized by a forest officer, the Conservator of Forests has jurisdiction under Sec. 57 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, to give direction regarding release of the vehicle and as the order had been passed by the superior authority, it was the duty of the Divisional Forest Officer to comply with the aforesaid direction. 4. Before considering the submissions made by the counsels for parties, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions contained in the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Sec. 56 of the Act dealing with the question of seizure of property and confiscation is extracted hereunder : “56. Seizure of property liable to confiscation. (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such pro¬duce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle 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, except where the offender agrees in writing to get the offence compounded, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the ‘authorised officer’) or make a report of 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 such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government and the offence is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circum¬stances to his official superior and the Divisional Forest Offi¬cer. (2-a) Where an authorised officer seizes any forest pro¬duce under Sub-sec. (2-a) Where an authorised officer seizes any forest pro¬duce under Sub-sec. (1) or where any such forest produce is produced before him under Sub-sec. (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence. (2-b) ... ... ... (2-c) ... ... ... (2-d) Any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Conservator of Forests empowered by the Government in this behalf by notifi¬cation may, within thirty days from the date of the order of confiscation by the authorised officer under Sub-sec. (2-a), either suo motu or on application, call for and examine the re¬cords of the case and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and pass such orders as he may think fit : Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. (2-e) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-sec. (2-a) or Sub-sec. (2-d) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized, and the District Judge shall after giving an oppor¬tunity to the parties to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit and the order of the District Judge so passed shall be final. (3) ... ... ...” Sec. 57 of the Act which deals with the power to release property seized under Sec. 56 is extracted hereunder : “57. Any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Range Officer who or whose subordinate has seized any tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle under Sec. 56, and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magistrate under Sub-sec. (2) of that section, may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof, of a bond for the production of the proper¬ty so released, if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.” 5. Mr. (2) of that section, may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof, of a bond for the production of the proper¬ty so released, if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.” 5. Mr. Sinha appearing for the petitioner has placed reli¬ance upon the provision contained in Sec. 57 to the effect that the power to release property seized under Sec. 56 has been given to “any authorised officer of a rank not inferior to the Range Officer who or whose subordinate” had effected the seizure. It is submitted by him that since the seizure had been effected by a forest official inferior to the rank of Conservator of Forests, the Coservator of Forests by exercise of power under Sec. 57 could give a direction for release of the vehicle. 6. Though prima facie such submission may appear to be attractive, on deeper scrutiny, this cannot be accepted. Sec. 57 itself provides that the officer “may release the property on the execution by owner of the property of a bond for production of the property released if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which sei¬zure had been made.” However, the expression which had been inserted by Orissa Act 9 of the 1983 to the effect, “and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magistrate under Sub-sec. (2) of that section” makes it clear that the power of release can be exercised only where such seizure has been reported to the Magistrate under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56, and not otherwise. This becomes more clear in view of the latter portion of Sec. 57 to the effect that the property is to be released on execution by the owner of a bond for production of property so released if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. In other words, where the seizure has not been reported to the Magistrate, Sec. 57 by virtue of its own plain language is not applicable. It has to be noticed that under Sec. 56 (2), as it stood before amendment effected by Orissa Act 9 of 1983, seizure was required to be reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence, except where offence was to be compounded. It has to be noticed that under Sec. 56 (2), as it stood before amendment effected by Orissa Act 9 of 1983, seizure was required to be reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence, except where offence was to be compounded. In other words, all seizures except where the offence was being compounded by the department itself were re¬quired to be reported before the Magistrate and the offences were requried to be tried by him. The isertion of the expression, “and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magistrate under Sub-sec. (2) of that section” in Sec. 57 was found necessary in view of the amendment effected in Sec. 56 (2) by Orissa Act 9 of 1983, where for the first time, the following was inserted in Sec. 56 (2) : “either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinaf¬ter referred to as the ‘authorised officer’) or” In fact, by Orissa Act 9 of the 1983, procedures relating to confiscation by the authorised officer and other provisions relating to appeal, etc. were inserted in the shape of Sec. 56 (2-a) to (2-e) . In other words, in addition to, or in lieu of question of trial by Magistrate, the Act has not contemplated a separate confiscation proceeding before the Authorised Officer. After the amendment in 1983, if a seizure is made, the officer seizing such property may produce the property seized before the Authorised Officer and/or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. Sec. 56 (2-a) envisages that where such forest produce is seized by the Autho¬rised Officer under Sub-sec. (1), or is produced before him under Sub-sec. (2), he may order confiscation of such forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence, subject to other conditions as envisaged in Sub-secs. (2-b) and (2-c) being fulfilled. If Sec. 57 would have continued to remain as such without any amendment, the general power of release of property could have been exercised by the concerned officer as indicated in Sec. 57. However, the insertion in that section of the expres¬sion “and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magis¬trate under Sub-sec. If Sec. 57 would have continued to remain as such without any amendment, the general power of release of property could have been exercised by the concerned officer as indicated in Sec. 57. However, the insertion in that section of the expres¬sion “and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magis¬trate under Sub-sec. (2) of that section” makes it clear that such power of release can be exercised only where the seizure is reported to the Magistrate and the property is to be released with a direction to produce the same before the Magistrate as and when required by the Magistrate. Where, seizure is not reported to the Magistrate and the property is produced before the Autho¬rised Officer, such a contingency would not arise. 7. The question would arise as to whether the property seized by the Authorised Officer or produced before the Autho¬rised Officer can at all be released before conclusion of a confiscation proceeding before the Authorised Officer. It is, of course, true that in view of the interpretation already given to Sec. 57, the question of interim release of the property by the Authorised Officer before whom confiscation proceeding is pending would not be governed by Sec. 57. However, that would not prevent the Authorised Officer to consider giving interim release of the property or vehicle. Since it is the Authorised Officer who can direct confiscation after conclusion of the proceeding, it can be concluded that he has got ancillary or implied power to deal with the matter relating to custody of the property during pendency of the proceeding. However, where the Authorised Officer is already in seisin of the property, any other statutory authority envis¬aged under Sec. 57 cannot direct for release of the property or vehicle. 8. It was also contended that since the Conservator of Forests can exercise sou motu power of revision being moved by any person under Sec. 56 (2-d) after the order of confiscation as a revisional authority, it must be taken that he has got power to pass any order even during the pendency of confiscation proceed¬ing. The revisional order envisaged in Sec. 56 (2-a) is only confined to final order of confiscation and there is no such revisional power in respect of any other order. The revisional order envisaged in Sec. 56 (2-a) is only confined to final order of confiscation and there is no such revisional power in respect of any other order. There cannot be any dispute that the Authorised Officer while acting under Sec. 56 (2-a) or the Conservator of Forests while acting under Sec. 56 (2-d) acts as a quasi-judicial authority and the orders of such authorities are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge having jurisdiction. However, this revisional jurisdiction and the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge are relatable to final confiscation orders. It is, of course, true that when matter comes to them either in revision or in appeal as contemplated in Sec. 56 (2-d) and 56 (2-e), they can pass any interim order relating to custody of the property/vehi¬cle or otherwise. However, it cannot be said that they have any authority while the matter is still pending before the Authorised Officer. 9. In such view of the matter, it would not be proper to give a direction to give effect to the order pass by the Conser¬vator of Forests. However, the Authorised Officer is now directed to consider the question of interim release of the vehicle of the petitioner. It is further directed that whether interim release of the vehicle is given or not, the confiscation proceeding itself should be finalised as expeditiously as possible. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ applica¬tion is disposed of. There will no order as to costs. Application disposed of.