JUDGMENT 1. The 1st respondent along with 5 others were arrested on 22.12.2005 for offences under Sections 9, 39 (1) (d), 50, 51 read with Section 2(16), 2(36) of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972. The vehicle bearing Registration No.KCE-3151, Maheendra Jeep, was seized as it was alleged to have been used for the commission of the above offences. The 1st respondent filed a petition, as C.M.P.No.1587/2006 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri, under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By Annexure-B order, that petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the 1st respondent. Assailing Annexure-B order, this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the investigating officer. 2. Having heard, I find that the issue involved in this case is covered by the decisions of the Apex Court in Section Forestor and another v. Mansur Ali Khan [2004(1) SCC 293] and State of Karnataka v. K.Krishnan [2000(7) SCC 80]. In Section Forestor's case (supra) at para 5 and 6, it is held as follows: "5. We see from the order of the High Court that though the High Court noticed that in various decisions of this Court in regard to the release of vehicles used for committing forest offences ought not to be released as a matter of course, still the High Court by the impugned order came to the conclusion that these directions issued by this Court are applicable only in cases which can be disposed of expeditiously and in cases where there is no such expeditious disposal of the proceedings, appropriate order of interim release can be made on conditions deemed fit by the court or the authority, as the case may be. 6. While in regard to the power of the High Court to release the vehicle in a given set of facts cannot be disputed, this Court as noticed by the High Court itself has laid down that such power can be exercised for good reasons and in exceptional cases only. In the instant case, the only reason given by the High Court for the release of the vehicle is on the ground that the same was in the custody of the officers for more than one year and there was no likelihood of immediate disposal of the pending case. In the instant case, the only reason given by the High Court for the release of the vehicle is on the ground that the same was in the custody of the officers for more than one year and there was no likelihood of immediate disposal of the pending case. This by itself, in our opinion, would not be a ground for the release of the vehicle because this would be the case in almost all such cases involving forest offence. In exceptional cases, the Act itself has made a provision for interim release of the vehicle on the existence of certain conditions mentioned therein. In the absence of such conditions being fulfilled, we do not think that the High Court as a matter of course could pass mechanical orders releasing such vehicles." In the latter decision at paragraph 7, it is held as follows: "7. ........................[W]e are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come." While issuing Annexure-B order, the trial court ignored the ruling of the Apex Court. In the light of the above decisions of the Apex Court, the order impugned is not sustainable and liable to be interfered with. 3. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-B order would stand quashed. The 1st respondent shall produce the vehicle before the trial court. In the event he fails to produce the same, the trial court shall see the same is seized and kept in safe custody or disposed of otherwise in accordance with law and procedure.