Judgment :- By this application applicant prays to quash and set aside the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 2002 with further prayer to restore the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti below application Ex. 19 in Criminal Proceeding arising from Crime No. 193 of 2002 registered by Forest Officer under Sections 9 and 39 of The Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 2] It is the case of the applicant that vehicle belonging to him being a tractor with registration no. MH-31/Z-8363 and trolly with registration no. MH-31/Z-8397 were seized by Forest Officials on the allegations that the said tractor and trolly were used for carrying flesh of wild pigs and that offence under Sections 9 and 39 of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was committed. 3] It appears that the applicant had moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ashti an application for grant of interim custody of tractor as well as trolly referred above. It appears that after hearing the said application (Ex. 19) learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by order dated 24.09.2002 was pleased to grant interim custody of the tractor and trolly to the applicant on certain conditions on supratnama to be executed by the applicant with indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) with further condition to produce the tractor and trolly as and when required provided further that the applicant will not change the nature of tractor and trolly. 4] It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had considered that the tractor and trolly were required for agricultural purposes by the applicant and if they are detained by the forest officials during the pendency of the case, they will have to keep it in open space and were likely to be affected by rain and light. The learned Magistrate did consider the objection raised in respect of the provisions of Forest Act as also the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 before granting interim custody as also ruling reported in Kamlesh Jaduramji Yadao Vs. State of Maharashtra 1997(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 198 before granting interim custody. It also appears that applicant had not received any notice of confiscation proceedings. State of Maharashtra 1997(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 198 before granting interim custody. It also appears that applicant had not received any notice of confiscation proceedings. Therefore, learned trial Magistrate chose to exercise discretion in the light of the ruling referred to above in favour of the applicant. It was specifically observed that no care was taken to produce any document on record to show that report of seizure was made to Authorised Officer and also to bring on record that show cause notice for confiscation proceedings was issued to the applicant. 5] Learned Advocate for the applicant canvassed the submissions in support of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti and invited my attention to the interim order passed by this Court dated 13.03.2008 to submit that possession of the tractor and trolly is with the applicant and interim stay was granted pending final hearing of this application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code in favour of the applicant pursuant to order dated 13.03.2008 and that applicant is ready and willing to abide by the conditions imposed against him for interim custody of the tractor and trolly under supratnama. 6] Learned Advocate for the applicant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application while suggesting that at the most hearing of criminal trial may be expedited. 7] Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent pressed into service ruling in Nawalkishor Goverdhandasji Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2006(1) AIR Bombay Reporter 36(DB) in order to submit that in an identical case when vehicle was involved in transportation of caracass of a wild pig, application for release of a vehicle by owner of the vehicle was held not maintainable at premature stage when charge sheet was not filed. I have perused the said ruling. It appears that while considering the facts and circumstances of that case it was observed that notice was required to be given to the petitioner before an order of forfeiture is passed under Section 51 of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. I have perused the said ruling. It appears that while considering the facts and circumstances of that case it was observed that notice was required to be given to the petitioner before an order of forfeiture is passed under Section 51 of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. The Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dispose of the petition with a direction to the Magistrate to expeditiously dispose of the trial and to issue notice to the petitioner at the stage when he would propose to pass an order of forfeiture under Section 51 of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. 8] Considering the well reasoned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of case, I think that the learned Sessions Judge Wardha erred to upset the said order particularly when it was contended that show cause notice upon the applicant as required under the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 was not served. Considering the fact that tractor and trolly were required by the applicant who is by occupation a cultivator it was just and proper exercise of judicial discretion by learned Magistrate to grant interim custody of the tractor and trolly to the applicant subject to final outcome of the case as well as subject to conditions which were already imposed against the applicant. Since the tractor and trolly continue to remain in custody of the applicant pursuant to interim stay granted by this Court, pending disposal of criminal proceedings ends of justice would be served if the application is allowed with direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti to dispose of pending Criminal Case as expeditiously as possible with further direction to issue notice to the applicant herein as required according to law before a final order of forfeiture under Section 51(2) of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 may be passed. The application is, therefore, allowed as prayed for with the above direction accordingly.