JUDGMENT : K. J. Rohee, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, in Criminal Revision Nos. 66 to 70 of 2006 decided on 5.7.2006 directing release of 5 trucks to the owners thereof namely respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein on executing bond of Rs.3 lacs each. 3. The facts can be stated thus:- On 1.2.2006 the Police Officials of P.S.Malkapur (Rural) seized five trucks engaged in transporting charcoal from the Government land under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. read with 52 (1) of the Indian Forest Act. It is alleged that trees from the Government land were cut, charcoal was prepared and it was being transported illegally. Crime No.14/2006 under Section 379 read with 34 of I.P.C.; Sections 26 (e) (g), 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act; Rules 66, 88 and 65(a) of the Bombay Forest Rules and under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Felling of Trees Act was registered at P.S. Malkapur (Rural) against the persons engaged in transportation. On the next day i.e. on 2.2.2006 the investigating officer informed the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur as well as the Authorised Officer Khamgaon about the seizure of charcoal and the trucks. The P.S.O. also requested the authorised officer to confiscate the charcoal and the trucks. 4. On 6.2.2006 respondents no.1 to 5 herein (the owners of the trucks seized) moved an application under Section 451, 457 of Cr.P.C. before the J. M.F. C. Malkapur for release of the trucks on their supratnama. The A.P.P. opposed the application by his say dated 15.2.2006 on the ground that the vehicles were seized under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and the trucks were liable to be confiscated. It was also pointed out that the power vests with the authorised officer, Khamgaon and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the trucks. 5. By order dated 17.2.2006 the learned Magistrate rejected the applications by holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The truck owners (respondents no.1 to 5 herein) preferred separate revision applications against the said order. 5. By order dated 17.2.2006 the learned Magistrate rejected the applications by holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The truck owners (respondents no.1 to 5 herein) preferred separate revision applications against the said order. By order dated 5.7.2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, allowed the revisions on the ground that the confiscation proceedings were not initiated in respect of the seized trucks before the Authorised Officer and as such the Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the trucks. He accordingly set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the release of the trucks on their executing bond for Rs.3 lacs each. The said order is under challenge. 6. We have heard Mr. M.P.Badar, Special Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.S. Dastane, Advocate for respondents 1 to 5. We have also perused the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 7. It was vehemently urged by Mr. Badar, the learned special counsel for the petitioner, that Section 52 (1) authorises authorised officer or police officer to seize any forest produce, vehicles etc. when there is reason to believe that the forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce. Mr. Badar submitted that Section 61-A directs that the officer seizing the property shall produce it together with the vehicle before the authorised officer. Sub-section (3) of Section 61-A empowers the authorised officer to confiscate the property if he is satisfied that forest offence has been committed in respect of such property. Mr. Badar submitted that Section 61-B prescribes procedure for confiscation. Section 61-C provides revision against the order of the authorised officer and Section 61-D provides appeal before the Sessions Judge. Mr. Badar further submitted that Section 61-G bars the jurisdiction of any Court, Tribunal, Authority except those mentioned in Section 61-A, C and D. Mr. Badar, therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the trucks. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the property. In support of this submission, Mr. Badar, therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the trucks. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to deal with the property. In support of this submission, Mr. Badar relied on the following cases in which the amended Sections 61-A to Section 61-G by the Maharashtra Act No.7 of 1985 have been considered by this Court and it has consistently been held that in view of the amendment the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is barred once confiscation proceedings have been started by the Authorised Officer:- i) State of Maharashtra & ors. .vs. Smt. Taranjeet Kaur 1992 Cr.L.J. 1398 (Bombay); ii) State of Mah. .vs. Mohd. Safi Noor Mohd. Shaikh 1999 (2) Mh.L.J. 631 ; iii) State of Maharashtra .vs. Suja Karan Rabanni 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 747 and iv) Range Forest Officer & one .vs. Sahebrao S. Ningot (Cri.W.P.354/2002 decided on 10.4.2004 by Single Judge of this Court (Unreported). 8. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge would show that he observed that nothing is on record to show that report under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act has been made by the Police to the Authorised Officer regarding seizure of the trucks under Section 52(1) of the Indian Forest Act. He further observed that there is nothing on record to show that the confiscation proceedings have been initiated or pending in respect of the seized trucks before the Authorised Officer. By observing this, he relied on Kamlesh Yadao .vs. State of Maharashtra . 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 198 and held that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was not barred. Mr. Dastane, the learned counsel for the respondents, also placed his reliance on the case of Kamlesh Yadao. A perusal of the judgment in the said case would show that it is not applicable to the present case because in the present case the investigating officer made report under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act to the authorised officer on the same day on which he informed the Magistrate i.e. on 2.2.2006 and even confiscation proceedings were started with issuance of show cause notice dated 26.5.2006 to the respondents. It seems that the learned Sessions Judge overlooked the report made by P.S.O. to J.M.F.C. Malkapur wherein it is specifically mentioned that the investigating officer has also informed the authorised officer under Section 61-A for initiating confiscation proceedings. It is thus clear that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was barred. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have been more cautious and careful in dealing with such matter which has a direct baring on ecological imbalance. 9. We may sound a note of caution that whenever any offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce and any vehicle etc. used in committing any such offence is seized and the intimation thereof is given to the concerned Magistrate, he should give notice to the authorised officer after an application for return of the property is moved before him. The Magistrate should not proceed to pass any order unless the authorised officer is noticed. Same precaution should be taken by the Sessions Judge whenever any revision or appeal has been preferred before him in any such matter. In the present case had there been such a notice, the Additional Sessions Judge would not have passed an illegal order. Hence we propose to bring this judgment to the notice of all the Sessions Judges and the Chief Judicial Magistrates who shall in their turn circulate it to all the Additional Sessions Judges and the Judicial Magistrates First Class. 10. In the result, we find that the learned Magistrate rightly rejected the applications for returning the trucks to the respondents (owners) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the said order and in releasing the trucks in favour of the respondents ( the truck owners). Hence the order:- The petition is allowed. The order dated 5.7.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, in Criminal Revision Nos. 66 to 70 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order of J.M.F.C., Malkapur passed on 17.2.2006 is restored. 11. Rule is made absolute in above terms.