ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Order Present petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure against order dated 11.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Chopal District Shimla H.P. Brief facts of the case 2. It is alleged that in vehicle No. HP-64-4676 forest produce i.e. Deodar oil (Cedar wood oil) was transported illegally and vehicle carrying Deodar oil (Cedar wood oil) took into 1 possession by way of seizure and FIR No. 18 of 2015 dated 26.4.2015 registered under Section 379 IPC and under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act 1927. Owner of vehicle namely Devinder Singh filed application for release of vehicle before learned Judicial Magistrate Chopal and learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle seized under Indian Forest Act 1927 in view of bar of jurisdiction under amended Section 59 (B) of H.P. Government. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and also perused the record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in present petition :- Point No.1 Whether petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? Point No.2 Final order. Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that owner of vehicle was not involved in any manner in smuggling of forest produce and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Fact whether owner of vehicle was involved in smuggling of forest produce or not is a complicated issue of facts. Judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts cannot be given at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that even if it is proved that said vehicle was used illegally for transmitting the forest produce then same was without awareness, information, knowledge and consent of petitioner and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that even if it is proved that said vehicle was used illegally for transmitting the forest produce then same was without awareness, information, knowledge and consent of petitioner and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Fact whether Deodar oil (Cedar wood oil) a forest produce was carried in vehicle without awareness, information, knowledge and consent or not is also complicated issue of facts. Judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts cannot be given at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that detention of vehicle has infringed the fundamental rights of petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Allegations against petitioner are that vehicle owned by petitioner was used for transmitting of Deodar oil (Cedar wood oil) a forest produce which is an offence under Indian Forest Act 1927. Offence under Indian Forest Act 1927 is a serious offence. Forest produce are wealth of nation. Judicial findings whether petitioner has committed offence under Indian Forest Act 1927 or not cannot be given at this stage because complicated issues of facts are involved in present case and it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings relating to complicated issues of facts unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 8. 8. H.P. Government amended Section 59 of Indian Forest Act 1927 in accordance with law and incorporated Section 59(b) in Indian Forest Act 1927 w.e.f. 24.7.1991 vide H.P. Act 15 of 1991 relating to bar of jurisdiction to the effect that if any vehicle is seized relating to committing of any forest offence then only authorised officer under Sub-section (1) of Section 52-A or officer specially empowered under Section 59-A or Sessions Judge empowered to hear appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 shall have jurisdiction to pass order with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of seized vehicle used in committing any forest offence not-withstanding anything to the contrary contained in Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. Indian Forest Act 1927 is a special Act. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between special law and general law then special law always prevails over general law. It is held that in view of above stated facts learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Chopal did not commit any abuse of process of Court and it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate keeping in view the fact that offence has been committed relating to forest produce. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that Deodar oil (Cedar wood oil) is not a forest produce as defined under Section 2 (4) of Indian Forest Act 1927 and on this ground petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 2(4) of Indian Forest Act 1927 forest produce has been defined which include (A) Timber, charcoal,caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, Kuth, myrabolams. (B) Trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce. (ii) Plants not being trees (Including grass, creepers, reeds and moss) and all parts or produce of such plants. (B) Trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce. (ii) Plants not being trees (Including grass, creepers, reeds and moss) and all parts or produce of such plants. (iii) Wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax and all other parts or produce of animals (iv) Peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (Including limestone, laterite, mineral oils, and all products of mines or quarries) Court is of the opinion that Deodar oil (Cedar wood oil) is extracted from the Deodar wood and falls within the definition of forest produce as defined in Section 2(4) (a) of Indian Forest Act 1927. 10. Case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner i.e. 1977 Cr.LJ 665 title N.K. Moidinkunhi v. K.N.Abdulla, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1928 title Smt. Bal Kaur v. State of H.P., AIR 1961 Allahabad 544 title Ram Abhilakh v. State, AIR 1960 Madhya Pradesh 195 title Lala Har Bhagwandas v. Diwan Chand, AIR 1943 Lahore 312 title Pohlu v. Emperor, AIR 1958 Madhya Pradesh 270 title Prakash Chandra Jain v. Jagdish, AIR 1965 Rajasthan 238 title M/s Dhanraj Baldeokishan v. State, 1972 Ker.LT 61 title Sivasankara Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1949 Allahabad 285 title Sheo Mangal v. Maharaj Kaur, AIR 1954 Punjab 27 title Mahanta Singh v. Het Ram are not applicable in present case because above stated rulings did not interpret amended Section 59(B) of Indian Forest Act 1927 amended by H.P. w.e.f. 24.7.1991 vide Himachal Pradesh Act 15 of 1991. Rulings cited supra are distinguishable. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided against petitioner. Point No.2(Final Order) 11. In view of findings upon point No.1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is dismissed. Observations will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confined to disposal of present petition. File of learned Judicial Magistrate along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Cr.MMO No. 331 of 2015 is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.