ORDER : Shri Prem Singh Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ku. Chitra Saxena, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/ State. 2. The petitioners have filed this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 11-4-2011 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 239/10 whereby the revisional Court rejected the revision filed by the petitioners and maintained the order of the appellate authority and Conservator of Forest Circle, Gwalior, dated 31-3-2010. The appellate authority has held that the questioned vehicle tractortrolley bearing No. M.P.06/J.A-5516 owned by the petitioner Sudhar Singh was seized in Forest Crime No. 8880/07 for it was found to transport 30 logs of Seesam wood without any valid licence. On 20-5-2007, the vehicle was being driven by Bunti, the son of the petitioner. The appellate authority held that offence under section 52(4)(b) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 is made out. Therefore, the seizure of Forest produce timber and vehicle seized is liable to be confiscated and the same cannot be delivered to the petitioner. 3. The appellate authority passed that order when the appeal was filed challenging the order of the competent authority, Forest Circle, Morena. 4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, on the ground that in the seizure memo and POR, there is no mention of Seesam wood. The wood has not been examined and proved to be Seesam wood. There is also violation of the direction given in K. R. Pushpan vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1985 Kerala 164 in which it has been held that when the forest produce is valued less, tractor and trolley cannot be confiscated. The petitioner also relied on State of M.P. vs. Madhukar Rao reported in 2008(I) MPJR 189. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contends and submitted that the tractor was involved in the illegal transportation of Forest produce hence liable to be confiscated as per the provisions of Indian Forest Act. The order of the competent officer dated 21-6-2009 and the order of the appellate authority dated 31-3-2010 and the order of the revisional Court dated 11-4-2011 has been very clear and in accordance with law. Therefore, invoking the powers of sections 482 Criminal Procedure Code is not warranted. 6. The order of the competent officer dated 21-6-2009 and the order of the appellate authority dated 31-3-2010 and the order of the revisional Court dated 11-4-2011 has been very clear and in accordance with law. Therefore, invoking the powers of sections 482 Criminal Procedure Code is not warranted. 6. Having heard both the parties and after going through the record it is found that the questioned vehicle has been seized in a Forest offence. The legislature has inserted the provision of confiscation of the property with a laudable object. Forest is a national wealth, which is required to be preserved. The State is the owner of the forests and forest produce. Depletion of forest would lead to ecological imbalance. It is now well-settled that the State is enjoined with a duty to preserve the forest so as to maintain ecological balance and thus, with a view to achieve the said object forest must be given due protection. 7. It is evident from the order dated 21-6-2009 passed by the competent Officer, Forest Circle, Morena, that after the seizure of the vehicle and timber information was given to the C.J.M., Joura, for its confiscation. The intimation was sent by letter No. 303 dated 21-5-2009. 8. In Rishi Nath Singh vs. State of M. P. and others, 1992 Cri.L.J. 1764, this Court adopted the view that, "9. .......... Therefore, in my opinion, after the directions of this Court in writ petition the legal proceedings to acquire the vehicle on Supurdgi are not saved after the notice and intimation of confiscation of the seized truck under the provisions of Forest Act. Therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal and decide the application of the applicant for the same." 9. This Court again reiterated the same view in Vishambhar Yadav vs. State of M.P., 2002 (3) MPLJ 245 and held that, "In case the confiscation proceedings are initiated under clause 3 of section 52 of the Forest Act, the J.M.F.C. exercising jurisdiction over the relevant area, ceases to have any jurisdiction to pass an order, on application seeking Supurdagi under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code in cases he is informed by Forest Officer under section 52(4) of the Forest Act. Therefore, the learned J.M.F.C. is found to have committed no illegality or impropriety in rejecting the petitioner's application moved under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the learned J.M.F.C. is found to have committed no illegality or impropriety in rejecting the petitioner's application moved under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus this revision petition does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at this stage of motion hearing." 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others vs. Sujeet Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 159 it is held that, Section 59-G of West Bengal Amendment Section 52C of Madhya Pradesh Amendment Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases. - Notwithstanding any-thing to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the officer authorized under section 59-C or the District Judge to whom an appeal may be preferred under section 59-D shall have and any other officer or Forest Officer or Court, tribunal or authority shall not have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of any property or tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle seized under section 52. (Emphasis supplied) Bar to jurisdiction of Courts etc. under certain circumstances. - (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 about initiation of the proceeding for confiscation of the property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of the property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, tribunal or authority (other than the authorized officers, appellate authority and the Court of Sessions referred to in section 52, 52-A, and 52-B), shall have jurisdiction to make order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under section 52, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force. Explanation : where under any law for the time being in force two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try forest offence, then receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 by one of the Courts of Magistrate having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be in receipt of intimation under that provision by all the Courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts." (Emphasis supplied) 11. Magisterial Court and revisional Court have not committed any error in rejecting the applications for release of the vehicle. In view of the above legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 11-4-2011, hence, this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is dismissed.