JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J. This petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 for releasing truck No. HP-65-6363 in favour of the petitioner. 2. It has been stated that petitioner is a registered owner of truck No. HP-65-6363 (for short ‘truck’ unless context is otherwise). On 16.8.2010, petitioner sent the truck alongwith its driver by loading government supply of 260 bags of cement from Dhanotu, District Mandi to Executive Engineer, IPH Division Kaza. 3. The petitioner came to know later on that truck has been impounded by the police in connection with FIR No. 17 dated 23.8.2010, registered at Police Station, Kaza, under sections 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act, sections 379, 465, 120-B IPC and section 7B(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent No. 3 after impounding the truck alongwith goods handed over the truck to respondent No. 2 by taking it to be a case involving offence under the Indian Forest Act. 4. The Divisional Forest Officers incharge of Territorial Forest Divisions and Wildlife Divisions in Himachal Pradesh have been notified as `authorized officers’ under sub-section(1) of section 52A of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Himachal Amendment) (for short, Act). It has been stated that police has not completed the investigation and challan has not been submitted in the court in FIR No. 17 dated 23.8.2010. 5. The petitioner on 25.9.2010 had filed an application before respondent No. 2 for releasing the truck alongwith its documents and keys. The petitioner vide communication dated 25.11.2010 was informed by respondent No. 2 that hearing of the application has been fixed on 30.12.2010 in the office of respondent No. 2 at Kaza but on 30.12.2010 no proceedings took place. 6. The respondent No. 2 on the other hand issued show cause notice dated 27.1.2011 to petitioner, an opportunity was given to explain his position within 30 days. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause. It has been pointed out that petitioner had handed over the truck to the driver for delivery of 260 bags of cement from Dhanotu to Kaza and after delivery of the said consignment of cement at Kaza the driver was asked to return back with vehicle. The driver was specifically instructed not to involve the vehicle for illegal transportation of any material. The driver was specifically instructed not to involve the vehicle for illegal transportation of any material. The petitioner denied that he was having knowledge of illegal transportation of timber by the driver in the truck. The involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence or for illegal acts of the driver acting outside his authority has been denied. The truck was subject to natural decay due to air, sunlight and rain etc. The submission was made for releasing the truck in favour of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner did not hear positive decision from respondents No. 2 and 3 with regard to release of truck. The petitioner asked information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from respondents No. 2 and 3, which was received from respondents No. 3 and 2 on 14.11.2011 and 15.11.2011 respectively. 8. The petitioner issued notice dated 20.12.2011 to respondents No. 1 and 2, which was replied by respondent No. 2 on 28.1.2012. The petitioner has not received either any decision on the release application of the petitioner filed before respondent No. 2 nor his truck has been released in favour of the registered owner. It has been stated that respondents have not complied sections 52A and 52B of the Act. 9. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed joint reply. It has been stated that truck was impounded by the police near international boundary of India when it was involved in carrying red sanders woods towards China alongwith another vehicle with same nature of forest produce. On this FIR No. 17 dated 23.8.2010 has been registered at Police Station, Kaza. The trucks and forest produce were handed over to forest department as per law. The red sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus) is listed under Appendix-II of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species from the Wild. 10. It has been admitted that petitioner had filed an application on 25.9.2010 before respondent No. 2 for releasing the truck alongwith its documents and keys. The decision on application with respect to release of truck could be given after completion of inquiry under section 52A by the authorized officer. The investigation in the case has not been completed; final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the court. The police has objected for the release of vehicle vide letter NO. 4920-21 dated 30.9.2010. The investigation in the case has not been completed; final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted in the court. The police has objected for the release of vehicle vide letter NO. 4920-21 dated 30.9.2010. Kaza police had filed an application under section 52A before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kaza on 1.9.2010 for taking action. 11. It has been admitted that respondent No. 2 had fixed the hearing on 30.12.2010, but vide letter dated 27.12.2010 addressed to the Advocate of the petitioner intimating that no further hearing will be held till proper report under section 52A is put before the authorized officer. The respondent No. 3 was requested many times to complete the investigation, so that hearing could be fixed and the applications of the police as well as petitioner could be disposed of accordingly. 12. It has been denied that impounding of vehicle was illegal and possession of truck by respondent No. 2 is illegal. The application of the petitioner regarding the release of the truck will be decided by the authorized officer after following due procedure under sections 52A and 52B of the Act. It has been stated that show cause dated 27.1.2011 was given on the application of petitioner for release of vehicle and not for confiscation of the vehicle. 13. The respondent No. 3 has filed separate reply. It has been stated that a secret information was received by Superintendent of Police, Lahaul & Spiti and Keylong that two trucks loaded with red sanders were parked at Lapcha road near Kaurik. On the information, the police team of police station, Kaza and check post Samdo rushed to the spot and two trucks bearing registration No. HP-27A-0785 and HP-65-6363 were found parked at Kaurik loaded with red sanders wood weighing 119.27 quintals, valuing Rs. 1,19,28,000/-. 14. The trucks and red sanders wood were taken into possession. The truck No. HP-65-6363 was loaded with 234 logs of red sanders wood weighing 66 quintals, 35 bags of pulses and 5 cans of refined oil and 12 other bags. A permit was issued for vehicle No. HP- 65-6363 in the name of Prem another accused in the case. In both the trucks for carrying red sanders wood, several persons were involved. The petitioner has not been named as an accused in FIR No. 17 dated 23.8.2010. A permit was issued for vehicle No. HP- 65-6363 in the name of Prem another accused in the case. In both the trucks for carrying red sanders wood, several persons were involved. The petitioner has not been named as an accused in FIR No. 17 dated 23.8.2010. The truck HP-65-6363 was handed over to Range Officer, Forest Department, Kaza on 24.8.2010 alongwith red sanders under section 52A of the Act, which is still with the forest department at Kaza. 15. It has been admitted that challan has not been filed in the court, even though challan was prepared on 27.8.2011. The prosecution sanction from competent authority is required with respect to two accused, namely Sukhdev Rana and Manmohan Singh, employees of ITBP. The respondent No. 3 has opposed the release of truck in favour of the petitioner. 16. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not an accused in the case nor as yet challan has been submitted in the court by the investigating agency even though as per the claim of investigating agency, the investigation has been completed. The truck is lying with respondent No. 2 since 24.8.2010 and for the last over two years the truck is decaying. An application for release of truck was filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 2, who at one point of time issued notice and fixed the date of hearing on the application of the petitioner, but thereafter the application was not taken for consideration. The respondent No. 2 is unnecessarily sitting over the application without passing any order on the application in accordance with law. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the registered owner of the truck, and, therefore, a direction may be given for releasing the truck in favour of the petitioner. He has relied Kashmir Singh vs. State of H.P. Cr.MMO No. 39 of 2009 decided on 3.5.2010. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that challan has not been submitted in the court. The respondent NO. 2 will pass appropriate order at right stage inasmuch as he has been requested, other than petitioner, not to proceed with the matter. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that truck is involved in the commission of offence and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the release of truck at this stage. 18. The respondent NO. 2 will pass appropriate order at right stage inasmuch as he has been requested, other than petitioner, not to proceed with the matter. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that truck is involved in the commission of offence and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the release of truck at this stage. 18. The controversy in the petition is limited, whether at this stage the petitioner is entitled to the release of the truck. The sections 52A, 52B of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Himachal Amendment), are as follows:- “52-A. Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where a forest-offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair wood and katha, which is the property of the State Government, the Officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of section 52 without any unreasonable delay produce it, together with all tools, ropes chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence before an Officer, authorized by the State Government in this behalf, by notification published in the Official Gazette, not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer). (2) Where an authorized officer seizes under sub-section (1) of section 52 any timber (excluding fuelwood) resin, khair wood and katha, which is the property of the State Government, or where any such property is produced before an authorized officer under subsection (1), once he is satisfied that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of such property, such authorized officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of the property so seized together with all tools ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence. (3) (a) Where the authorized officer, after passing an order of confiscation under sub-section (2), is of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, he may order confiscated property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction. (3) (a) Where the authorized officer, after passing an order of confiscation under sub-section (2), is of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, he may order confiscated property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction. (b) Where any confiscated property is sold as aforesaid, the proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall, where the order of confiscation made under section 52-A is set aside or annulled by an order under section 59 or section 59-A, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it was seized as may be specified in such order. 52B. Issue of show cause notice confiscation under section 52.-A (1) No order confiscating any timber (excluding fuelwood) resin, khair wood and katha, ropes chains, boats or vehicles shall be made under section 52A except after notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized and considering his objections, if any; Provided that no order confiscating a motor vehicle shall be made except, after giving notice in writing to the registered owner thereof, if in the opinion of the authorized officer it is practicable to do so and considering his objection if any. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any tool, rope chain, boat or vehicle shall be made under section 52A if the owner if the tool rope, chain, boat or vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying the timber (excluding fuelwood), resin, khair, wood and katha without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any and the person-in-charge of the tool, rope chain, boat or vehicle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use.” 19. In Kashmir Singh case (supra), it has been held as follows:- “A bare reading of the above amended provision insofar as confiscation of a vehicle under Section 52 (A) of the Indian Forest Act, makes it clear that the prosecution is required to satisfy two conditions; (i) there must be notice in writing given to the registered owner of the vehicle, if practicable; and (ii) the vehicle must be found to have been used for illicit transportation of forest produce with the connivance or knowledge of the owner or his agent. The purpose of issuance of notice to the registered owner is to afford him an opportunity to explain his position regarding the use of the vehicle and to show cause to the contrary in case he establishes that he has no knowledge or connivance for committing the said offence, the vehicle cannot be confiscated.” 20. The petitioner on 25.9.2010 had moved an application before respondent No. 2 for releasing the truck. The respondent No. 2 issued show cause dated 27.1.2011 and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his position within 30 days from the date of issue of show cause. The show cause was issued, under section 52B of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Himachal Amendment). It is admitted case of the parties that date of hearing was fixed on 30.12.2010 in the release application. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that no proceedings took place on 30.12.2010 and thereafter in pursuance of show cause dated 27.1.2011. 21. It has been submitted that respondent No. 2 has neither released the truck in favour of the petitioner nor he has taken any decision otherwise with respect to the truck under sections 52A and 52B of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Himachal Amendment). The authorized officer is to discharge his statutory duties in accordance with law. He cannot sit over the application of the petitioner for release of truck indefinitely. The truck was impounded on 23.8.2010 and thereafter it is lying with respondent No. 2, who is duty bound to decide the application of the petitioner for release of truck or otherwise within a reasonable time. 22. The petitioner had moved the application for releasing the truck on 25.9.2010 and for the last over two years, the application has not been decided. 22. The petitioner had moved the application for releasing the truck on 25.9.2010 and for the last over two years, the application has not been decided. There is no whisper in the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2 that petitioner is at fault for deciding the application dated 25.9.2010. There is no legal reason on record to show any justification for not deciding the application of petitioner by respondent No. 2, even though more than two years are over since when the application was filed by the petitioner for releasing the truck. 23. In view of above, petition is allowed, the respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the application dated 25.9.2010 Annexure P-3 of the petitioner within a period of three months in accordance with law and Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Himachal Amendment) from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to be supplied by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. The petition is disposed of on above terms.