JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has assailed order dated 17.03.2021, passed by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh Forest Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., vide which an application filed by the present petitioner for release of vehicle (Pickup) bearing registration No.PB65AU9203 along with its documents, in case FIR No.365/20, dated 25.11.2020, under Sections 379, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., has been dismissed and also against order dated 09.08.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Revision No.1NL/ 10 of 2021, titled as Sodhi Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, vide which the appeal preferred by present petitioner against the order passed by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh Forest Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. has been rejected by the learned Appellate Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that FIR No.365 of 2020 has been registered on 25.11.2020, under Sections 379, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. This FIR is with regard to illicit felling of Khair trees & illegal transportation of Khair logs through Pickup bearing registration No.PB65AU9203. The vehicle in issue belongs to the present petitioner. In other words, the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in issue. He filed an application under Section 53 of the Indian Forest (HP 2nd Amendment) Act, 1991, for release of said vehicle before the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh Forest Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., which was dismissed by the said authority vide order dated 17.03.2021, by holding that as the proceedings under Section 52A of the Indian Forest (HP 2nd Amendment) Act, 1991 were still pending and the case was pending before the Authorized OfficercumDeputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., therefore, the application deserved rejection. 3. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, i.e. the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court, in Criminal Revision No.380 of 2015, titled as State of H.P. Versus Parkash Chand, decided on 20.04.2017, by holding that the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. was not having the jurisdiction to entertain the application for interim release of vehicle and there was also an observation by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh Forest Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. that the vehicle was involved in smuggling of Khair trees. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. 5. This Court is of the considered view that order dated 09.08.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order passed by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh Forest Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., rejecting his application under Section 53 of the Indian Forest (HP 2nd Amendment) Act, 1991 has been dismissed, is perverse order. The petitioner had in fact approached the learned Appellate Court feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh Forest Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., vide which his application filed under Section 53 of the Indian Forest (HP 2nd Amendment) Act, 1991 stood dismissed on merit. In terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.380 of 2015, titled as State of H.P. Versus Parkash Chand, decided on 20.04.2017, the course open in such like cases to the aggrieved party is to file an appeal before the Court of learned Sessions Judge. It was also held by this Court in said case that a party could not have approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge by way of an application for release of the vehicle. 6. In this case, it is not as if, after the dismissal of the application filed under Section 53 of the Indian Forest (HP 2nd Amendment) Act, 1991, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for release of the vehicle. 6. In this case, it is not as if, after the dismissal of the application filed under Section 53 of the Indian Forest (HP 2nd Amendment) Act, 1991, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for release of the vehicle. He approached that Court by way of an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh Forest Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. This appeal was maintainable and the learned Appellate Court was duty bound to have had adjudicated the same on merit. Thus, dismissal of the same by the learned appellate Court by holding that the same was not maintainable is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the order so passed by the learned Appellate Court is thus set aside because the learned Appellate Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that petitioner had approached before it for interim release of the vehicle by way of an application, which was not the case. 7. Be that as it may, now coming to the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle, this Court is of the considered view that said prayer deserves to be allowed. Whether or not, the vehicle was used in the act which has resulted in registration of the FIR is a matter of trial and in case the complainant is able to take its complaint to its logical conclusion, then but natural, the law will take its own course. But, till then this Court is of the considered view that keeping the vehicle stranded will not serve the purpose of anyone. Incidently, the petitioner happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it will be in the interest of justice in case the vehicle is ordered to be released on Supurdari in his favour. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 09.08.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Revision No.1NL/ 10 of 2021, titled as Sodhi Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, is ordered to be set aside, for the reasoning assigned hereinabove. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 09.08.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Revision No.1NL/ 10 of 2021, titled as Sodhi Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, is ordered to be set aside, for the reasoning assigned hereinabove. Similarly, order dated 17.03.2021, passed by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nalagarh Forest Division, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., is also ordered to be set aside as this Court is of the considered view that simply because the proceedings were pending, the same was not cogent ground for dismissal of the application filed under Section 53 of the Indian Forest (HP 2nd Amendment) Act, 1991. The authority concerned is further ordered to release the vehicle in question,i.e. Pickup bearing registration No.PB65AU9203, in favour of the petitioner on Supurdari in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount as per Rules. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.