JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th March, 2012 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Hazaribagh rejecting the petitioner's application for release of 1000 MT steam coal which was seized in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No. 276 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 3501 of 2011 under Sections 414,420,379,201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 (ii) of the Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in total 5000 M.T of the said coal was seized in a criminal case and it was kept in the factory premises itself. It has been alleged that 1000 M.T of the said coal has been removed by the present accused-petitioner. Finding this another F.I.R was registered wherein this application for release was submitted. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the confiscation proceeding was initiated to confiscate the 5000 M.T of the coal but the Confiscating Authority by detailed reasoned order has already dropped proceedings for confiscation vide order dated 17.5.2012. It is submitted that in view of that event 2393.29 M.T of coal out of 5000 M.T coal was ordered to be released by this Court vide order dated 28th August, 2012 in Cr. Revision No. 429 of 2012. It is submitted that in view of the dropping of the proceeding of confiscation as well as in view of the order of release of 2393.29 M.T of coal vide order dated 28th August, 2012, coal in question now be released and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate committed error in not releasing the coal. It is also submitted that in the petition however, case no. has been mentioned as “Mandu P.S. Case No. 276 of 2011” whereas the correct title of case number is Mandu (West Bengal) P.S. Case No. 276 of 2011. 4. Learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the subject matter of coal is piece of evidence in the criminal case, which is pending and the Confiscation Proceeding may have been dropped but looking to the quantity of the coal, it may not be released. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the subject matter of coal is piece of evidence in the criminal case, which is pending and the Confiscation Proceeding may have been dropped but looking to the quantity of the coal, it may not be released. 5. Without commenting on the merit of the case but taking into consideration the fact that this Court has already taken note of dropping of the confiscation proceeding, this Court ordered release of the coal vide order dated 28th August, 2012, which has not been challenged by the State Government, it will be appropriate to allow this Revision Petition and the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Incharge, Hazaribagh dated 13th March, 2012 is set aside. Hence, 1000 M.T out of that 5000 M.T coal be released in favour of the petitioner-company through its director Manoj Kumar Agrawal on his furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lacs) before the trial court. Revision allowed.