ORDER : Deepak Maheshwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present misc. petition are that vehicle Bolero Car No. RJ-29 AQ 2079 was seized by the authorities of the Forest Department and a criminal case being FIR No. 51-4/2015 was registered for offence under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44 (C), 49 (B) and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972"). The petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question moved an application for interim custody under Section 451 of Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate, which came to be dismissed by learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 01.10.2015. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota, which too, was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2015. On perusal of the order dated 15.20.2015, it appears that the release application has been rejected mainly on account of Section 39 (1) (d) of the Act of 1972. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Madhukar Rao, reported in (2008) 14 SCC p. 624. On the strength of the above judgment, he has contended that the restriction imposed by Section 39 (1) (d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act will come into force only when the accused has been finally held guilty by the learned trial Court but during pendency of the trial, that Section cannot be pressed into service for refusing the release of vehicle. He has specifically referred to para 23 of the said judgment in this regard, wherein it has been observed as follows: "It was held that the provision of Section 39 (1)(d) would come into play only after a court of competent jurisdiction found the accusation and the allegations made against the accused as true and recorded the finding that the seized article was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence. Any attempt to operationalise Section 39(1)(d) of the Act merely on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations levelled by the departmental authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provisions and would render it unconstitutional and invalid. Any attempt to operationalise Section 39(1)(d) of the Act merely on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations levelled by the departmental authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provisions and would render it unconstitutional and invalid. In our opinion, the High Court has taken a perfectly correct view and the provisions of Section 39(1) (d) cannot be used against exercise of the magisterial power to release the vehicle during pendency of the trial". 4. Further, reference has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principle Chief Conservator of Forest & Anr. v. J. K. Johnson & Ors. wherein the judgment in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madhukar Rao (supra) has been relied upon. In para 40 of the said judgment, it has been held that the order passed by Conservator of Forest for forfeiture of the vehicle and the two rifles to the State Government is de hors the provisions of the 1972 Act and unsustainable. However, it has also been held that for release of the seized articles, application has to be led before the Magistrate under Section 50 (4) of the 1972 Act. 5. It is undisputed fact that the trial is still pending in the matter in hand and the accused has not been finally held guilty for the offence under the provisions of the Act of 1972. 6. Thus, in view of the above referred judgments, Section 39 (1) (d) of the Act of 1972 cannot be made operational and the release of the said vehicle cannot be refused solely on ground that the property or the vehicle has been confiscated. The application moved under Section 50 (4) of the Act is liable to be considered and decided by the Court on its merits as the provision of Section 39 (1) (d) of the Act of 1972 are not applicable since the trial is pending. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court on 1.10.2015 and upheld by the revisional Court vide order dated 15.10.2015 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned trial Court with the direction to consider the application afresh, if filed by the petitioner under Section 50 (4) of the 1972 Act. 7. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court on 1.10.2015 and upheld by the revisional Court vide order dated 15.10.2015 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned trial Court with the direction to consider the application afresh, if filed by the petitioner under Section 50 (4) of the 1972 Act. 7. The learned Magistrate will be at liberty to impose any of the following conditions, while disposing the application filed under Section 50 (4) of the Act of 1972 to release the vehicle in question :- (i) the applicant will not transfer, sale, alienate or create any third party interest with respect to offending vehicle in question; (ii) the applicant will not change the colour of offending vehicle and; (iii) the applicant shall produce the offending vehicle in question as and when required by the trial Court during trial till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 51-4/2015 as well as by the confiscating authority till the final disposal of confiscation proceedings pending in the Forest Department, if any. 8. This criminal misc. petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed if as above.