J. N. PATEL, J.:- On 8-10-2001 the Range Forest Officer for Warora had seized a Truck bearing Regd. No.MH-31-W-3442 at the site of crusher Unit of M/s. Shanti Metals, on the allegations that it was involved in transporting of Carcass of a wild pig found dead, allegedly due to electrocution in the field of one Vijay Sayankar on 3-8-2001. The seizure was made under the panchanama. At the time when truck came to be seized, it was driven by Shri. Jugal Meshram, who ran away abandoning the truck. In the course of investigation, it was found that the truck belonged to petitioner, who is radiologist, practising at Chandrapur and also claims to hold various positions in the society, like President of Chandrapur Junior Chamber, Executive Member of Indian Medical Association, Chandrapur, and so on. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid truck was passing when Vijay Sayankar and his companions were trying to take out carcasses of wild pigs from the field of Sayankar, which was driven by Jugal Meshram, who was known to Vijay Sayankar and it is on the request of Vijay Sayankar that the carcasses of the wild pigs were transported in a truck, which was subsequently carried away in another vehicle. The petitioner had applied for release of the truck before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Warora on Supratnama, even before the charge-sheet/ complaint came to be filed by the respondent, vide Criminal Application No.155 of 2001, dated 10th October, 2001 in Crime No.657 of 2001. The learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Warora had disposed of the application on 29th October, 2001 by which the application of the petitioner came to be rejected, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. It is the contention of Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there is no bar in so far as releasing the truck on Supratnama in favour of the petitioner, as the said truck even if it is found to be used in the offence committed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 3. It is the contention of Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there is no bar in so far as releasing the truck on Supratnama in favour of the petitioner, as the said truck even if it is found to be used in the offence committed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. He further submitted that it can only be forfeited to the State Government on conviction of the person of the offence against this Act and, therefore, on this very reason the Trial Court ought to have released the truck on Supratriama in favour of the petitioner till the case was concluded and thereafter could have passed appropriate order under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is submitted that the Trial Court having observed in its order that the said vehicle, which has been seized under the provisions of the said Act, will be the propelty of the State Government, has adversely affected the interest of the petitioner for the very reason that the petitioner is not prosecuted as an accused in the case and further he being the owner of the truck had no knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying carcass of the wild pigs, as alleged by the respondents, which was at the relevant time driven by one of the accused in the case, who was employed as a driver of the petitioner. 4. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the vehicle in question be released on Supratnama. 5. In reply, it is the case of the respondents that this application was made even before the charge-sheet/complaint came to be filed and at that stage the learned Magistrate of the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. According to the respondents, the truck in question came to be seized by Range Forest Officer, Warora under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as it was carrying two dead bodies of wild pigs from the field of Charukheti to Nala near Panzurni Stone Mine, in contravention of Section 48 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. According to the respondents, the truck in question came to be seized by Range Forest Officer, Warora under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as it was carrying two dead bodies of wild pigs from the field of Charukheti to Nala near Panzurni Stone Mine, in contravention of Section 48 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Under Section 48(A) of the Act there is a bar for transportation of any wild animal or any animal article, without permission from the Chief Wild Life Warden and the petitioner had not obtained a transit pass. Under Section 39 of the Act every vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 IS a Government property. 6. It is further submitted that the complaint is filed under Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with subsections 16 and 36 of Sections 2, 39, 50, 51, 52, 57 and 48-A of the said Act read with Section 2(4)(iii), Sections 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rules 66 and 129 of Bombay Forest (Amendment) Transit Rules, 1999. 7. Mr. M. P. Badar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the subject matter falls under the special statute and as the vehicle is liable for forfeiture under Section 51 of the said Act having vested in the State Government under Section 39 of the Act, the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the application, filed by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle on Supratnama. 8. Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, cited a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator and Ors. Vs. Sharad Ramchandra Kale, AIR 1998 SC 2927 , and emphasised that the order of confiscation of truck cannot be passed on finding that owner of truck had no knowledge that truck was likely to be used 'for carrying forest produce in contravention of Forest Act. He further submitted that under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, there is no provision under Section 61-A to 61-G (Indian Forest Act, 1927, in its application to State of Maharashtra after Section 61) in which the Forest Officer has a power of confiscation of property mentioned therein. He further submitted that under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, there is no provision under Section 61-A to 61-G (Indian Forest Act, 1927, in its application to State of Maharashtra after Section 61) in which the Forest Officer has a power of confiscation of property mentioned therein. But that does not give a free hand to the Magistrate to release the vehicle, seized under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by invoking its power under 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is a special statute which provides for a different procedure. relating to seizure and confiscation of properties during the course of commission of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Badar, the learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that in the impugned order the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the various decisions of this court as well as the Supreme Court and, as the order does not suffer from any error or illegality, it does not call for interference and petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had filed this application at the stage when charge-sheet was not filed and the impugned order would come in the way of the petitioner, if he moves an application before the learned Magistrate, who is seized of the trial, as the petitioner is not an accused, and further even at the conclusion of the trial the petitioner would not be heard when the learned Magistrate would be taking decision in respect of the disposal of property, as provided under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be left without a remedy. 11. In so far as the impugned order is concerned, we find that it does not call for any interference, as the right of the petitioner to claim the motor vehicle does not stand foreclosed. The learned Magistrate while disposing of the petition was conscious of this fact and in para no.15 of the impugned order it has observed that - "It is pertinent to note that at this stage the vehicle of the applicant is neither forfeited nor confiscated to the State. The learned Magistrate while disposing of the petition was conscious of this fact and in para no.15 of the impugned order it has observed that - "It is pertinent to note that at this stage the vehicle of the applicant is neither forfeited nor confiscated to the State. Under Section 51 of the Act, in the event the accused are held guilty, the vehicle used for commission of the said offence would be forfeited to the State Government. Although Section 39(d) of the Act provides that the vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this Act, shall be property of the State Government. However, at this stage, unless a finding is given as ·required under Section 51 of the Act, the vehicle cannot be forfeited to the State Government. The applicant will have every opportunity of being heard at the time of trial and, therefore, to my mind, at this stage there is no contravention of principle of natural justice." 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it will be appropriate to direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the trial expeditiously, as same is not yet concluded, and on conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate shall give notice to the petitioner when he proceeds to pass an order of forfeiture under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 12-A. Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as now the charge-sheet has been filed, there is material on record on the basis of which the learned Magistrate can take a decision whether the knowledge can be attributed to the petitioner that the truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provisions of Forest Act and, if the petitioner is successful in convincing the learned Trial Court that he had no knowledge that the truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the Forest Act then he shall have liberty to move an application for release of the truck. 13. 13. We do not find any legal impediment in the way of the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate in the matter and make an application to the learned Magistrate but with reservation as to whether the Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to entertain such an application before the trial is concluded. . 14. Therefore, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the Magistrate to expeditiously dispose of the trial and issue notice to the petitioner at the stage when he would propose to pass an order of forfeiture under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. . Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.