JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the State. 2. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the proceedings of Confiscation Case No.1 of 2013 pending before the Divisional Forest Officer, Araria. Further prayer is to issue mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release the pick up van bearing registration No.WB 59A/8401 along with 57 pieces of Sal wood logs in favour of the petitioner, who is owner thereof. 3. The case and claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the pick up van bearing registration No.WB 59A/8401 and is a registered owner thereof vide registration dated 10.07.2012. The petitioner had booked paddy on the said vehicle for Purnia. After unloading the paddy, the petitioner purchased 57 pieces of Sal woods from National Traders, Nevalal Chowk, Purnea, on 09.04.2013. When the vehicle was going to its destination, near Janta Hatt in the district of Kishanganj, the police officials of Khocha Dhaman P.S. seized the aforesaid vehicle and forcefully took the same to the police station on 09.04.2013 itself along with laden wood logs. A forest case was lodged bearing prosecution report No.4 dated 19.04.2013, vide report submitted by the Forest Guard, Kishanganj, in which besides the vehicle only 45 pieces of Sal wood logs were shown as seized. The said prosecution report was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, and prosecution bearing Case No.CC15 of 2013 was initiated. 4. Submission is that the unexplained delay in between the date of seizure and report to the Magistrate gives rise to strong case of mala fides on the part of the prosecution which vitiates the entire proceeding. 5. The petitioner prayed for release of the vehicle as well as the Sal wood logs on the ground of his bona fide ownership. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, rejected the prayer by order dated 05.06.2013 mainly on the ground that confiscation proceeding in respect of the seized vehicle and wood logs has already been initiated by the competent authority. 6. Respondent No.3 in his separate counter affidavit assailed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of search and seizure the driver fled away; hence, he did not produce any paper of ownership. 6. Respondent No.3 in his separate counter affidavit assailed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of search and seizure the driver fled away; hence, he did not produce any paper of ownership. In fact, only 45 pieces of Sal wood logs were found on the vehicle. The seized woods were illegally procured by the petitioner violating the provisions of Indian Forest Act and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly refused the prayer on the ground of pendency of the confiscation proceeding under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927. 7. Respondent No.7 has filed separate counter affidavit explaining and disputing the claim of the petitioner that under all the circumstances the seizure of 09.04.2013 was reported on 19.04.2013. It is stated that soon after seizure of 09.04.2013 station diary entry No. 181 dated 09.04.2013 was made and the matter was reported to the Forest Officer. Station diary entry No.498 dated 18.04.2013 reveals that the Regional Forest Officer, Kishanganj, came to the police station and received the vehicle as well as the forest product loaded on that vehicle. However, expressed his inability to carry the same immediately and ultimately took the same on 01.07.2013 vide Annexure-C series. In the circumstances, delayed reporting was made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj. 8. Contention of the petitioner is that since the seized articles and the vehicle were purchased by the petitioner vide Annexures-2 and 3 respectively, its seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction and just to harass the petitioners. 9. The letter dated 19.04.2013, at Annexure-4, reveals that the Forest Officer, Kishanganj, reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding seizure of Forest Produce and also disclosing the fact that the driver had fled away. Hence, the search of accused is going on. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, was further informed that appropriate step for confiscation under Sections 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has already been initiated. The notice at Annexure-7 reveals that the petitioner has already been noticed to put his claim in confiscation case No.1 of 2013 vide notice dated 30.10.2013. The Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, was informed by letter dated 27.06.2013 of the Divisional Forest Officer that confiscation proceeding has already been initiated. 10. The notice at Annexure-7 reveals that the petitioner has already been noticed to put his claim in confiscation case No.1 of 2013 vide notice dated 30.10.2013. The Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, was informed by letter dated 27.06.2013 of the Divisional Forest Officer that confiscation proceeding has already been initiated. 10. There is no dispute that forest produce have been seized from the vehicle of the petitioner and the authorities are competent to order for confiscation or otherwise after hearing the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Thereafter the aggrieved party has opportunity to challenge the same in appeal under Section 59 of the Act. 11. There is no merit in the submission of the petitioner that delay in reporting the matter to the Magistrate was with some mala fide intention. The factum of seizure is not disputed i.e., on 09.04.2013. Why the matter was not reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate before 19.04.2013 is explained in the counter affidavit as discussed above. Therefore, the impugned proceeding cannot be faulted for that reason. 12. Since the petitioner has been noticed in the confiscation proceeding, petitioner is at liberty to raise his grievance before the authority concerned, who shall pass a reasoned order. The statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise this extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, this criminal writ application stands dismissed.