JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application has been directed against the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh in connection with Rajrappa P. S. Case No. 10 of 2018 by which an application preferred by the petitioner for release of tractor cum trailor bearing registration no. JH02E/9969 has been rejected. 3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 do reveal that the primary reason for rejection of the release application was that confiscation proceeding no. 38 of 2018 has been initiated against the said tractor with trailor of which the petitioner claims himself to be the owner. The tractor and trailor of the petitioner was seized and an FIR was also instituted on 29.03.2018 in Rajrappa P. S. Case No. 10 of 2018. It is also alleged that the said tractor including that of the trailor were found loaded with coal and no papers could be produced with respect to the same. On 10.04.2018, the petitioner claiming himself the owner of the tractor bearing registration no. JH02E/9969 had filed an application for its release. On filing of the said application, the learned S.D.J.M. has sought for a report from the concerned authorities as to whether any confiscation proceeding has been initiated or not. A report was submitted on 24.04.2018 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh in which it was stated that recommendation for starting a confiscation proceeding of the tractor in question has not yet been received by the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh and it was indicated therein that if such recommendation is received, necessary steps shall be taken. The learned S.D.J.M. instead of acting on the report of the D.F.O. dated 24.04.2018 when there was no report that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated should have passed order on the release application of the petitioner instead of delaying the matter to frustrate the prayer made by the petitioner. Subsequently, another report was called for on 26.04.2018 from the D.F.O. and ultimately it was reiterated that the confiscation case no. 38 of 2018 has been instituted on 08.05.2018 which became the reason for the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh to have rejected the release application preferred by the petitioner. 4. Subsequently, another report was called for on 26.04.2018 from the D.F.O. and ultimately it was reiterated that the confiscation case no. 38 of 2018 has been instituted on 08.05.2018 which became the reason for the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh to have rejected the release application preferred by the petitioner. 4. When the concerned Magistrate had been given a report clearly stating that no confiscation proceeding has been initiated, it was incumbent upon the S.D.J.M. to have proceeded and verified as to the ownership of the tractor bearing registration no. JH02E/9969 and after such verification could have further proceeded for release of the tractor on the application preferred by the petitioner. Instead of verifying the ownership in the circumstances noted above, learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh delayed the matter and frustrated the release application preferred by the petitioner as on account of the confiscation proceeding having been initiated on 08.05.2018, the said release application was rejected. The learned S.D.J.M. did not take into consideration that the tractor and trailor was suffering from the vagaries of weather and insistence on the part of the learned S.D.J.M. for repeatedly calling for a report had perhaps led to initiation of confiscation proceeding, thereby frustrating the claim of the petitioner. Once the report had been submitted and it was specifically mentioned by the D.F.O., Ramgarh that no recommendation has been received from the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh for initiation of confiscation proceeding, the learned S.D.J.M. should have acted on the same and proceeded in terms of what has been observed herein before. 5. In the circumstances denoted above, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 being unsustainable in the eye of law is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below with a direction to consider the release application preferred by the petitioner afresh. 6. It is once again made clear that initiation of the confiscation case no. 38 of 2018 shall not come in the way of the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh in releasing the tractor and trailor, if the petitioner is able to satisfy the court with respect to his ownership of the tractor and trailor in question apart from the other facts related for consideration of the release application. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.