ORDER : Instant petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 18.3.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Kangra, District Kangra in Cr.MA No. 130 of 2021 titled Sadh Mohammad vs. State of H.P., whereby application preferred by petitioner under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘ Cr.PC’), seeking release of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-19B-4409 along with documents in case FIR No. 112 of 2019, dated 27.6.2019, registered under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, has been dismissed, on the ground that in view of provisions of Indian Forest Act and pronouncement of Courts, including the Supreme Court in cases State of Karnataka vs. K.A. Kunchindammed, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 90 ; Sohan Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2004 Law Suit (HP) 76; Mohd. Tazim vs. State of Uttrakhand and others 2012 Law Suit (Utt.)851; State of Madhya Pradesh; Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambel Adhyaran; Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Officer, Shivpuri, M.P. vs. Uday Singh; Rakesh Lavaniya; Narottam Singh; Jashrat Singh 2019 Law Suit (SC) 961, the Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction/authority to pass an order qua interim custody of vehicle. 2. Present petition has been filed mainly on ground that though there is bar of jurisdiction under Section 59-B of Indian Forest Act for making an order with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of property including vehicle used for committing any forest offence and seized under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, however, the said bar of jurisdiction shall operate only when Authorized Officer under Indian Forest Act shall take action under Section 52(1) of Indian Forest Act for confiscating the vehicle and sending the report to Magistrate under Section 52(2) of Indian Forest Act and also for compliance of provisions of Sections 52-A and 52-B of Indian Forest Act. 3. It has been submitted that in present case, neither report of seizure under Section 52(2) was sent to Magistrate by Authorized Officer nor a show cause notice before confiscation was issued to petitioner and therefore, it has been urged that bar under Section 59-B shall not operate in present case and learned Magistrate is deemed to be authorized and having jurisdiction to order interim custody of vehicle in question, but the Magistrate has failed to exercise jurisdiction conferred upon him. 4. 4. In response to petition, it is contended on behalf of respondent/State that proceedings for confiscation of resin and vehicle have been initiated under Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act on 20.9.2019 before the Authorized Officer and therefore, bar of jurisdiction as provided under Section 59-B has become operative and therefore, rejection of application by learned Magistrate has been supported for reasons assigned in impugned order. 5. It is submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that Authorized Officer has initiated process for confiscation of recovered resin along with vehicle i.e. Truck No. HP-19B-4409 by issuing notice to present petitioner Sadh Mohammad owner of truck and Nasib Singh claiming ownership of resin product. She has placed on record the copy of notice with endorsement No. 2477-78 dated 1.10.2019 addressed to Sadh Mohammad (petitioner) and Nasib Singh, copy whereof was also forwarded to SHO, Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra H.P. for information and necessary action with direction to attend the hearing and defend the case on behalf of Government. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record an application dated 20.8.2019 filed by petitioner Sadh Mohammad through his counsel Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate filed before Authorized Officer for release of vehicle in reference. 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed on record the summons bearing No. 6693 dated 3.1.2020 issued to Leela Dhar, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra HP stating therein that an application for release of Truck No. HP-19B-4409 has been filed by Mr.R.S. Randhawa, Advocate, and therefore Assistant Sub Inspector was asked to appear before Authorized Officer on 10.1.2020 to explain as to whether vehicle was required by Investigating Agency or not. Copy of this notice with endorsement No. 6694 dated 3.1.2020 was also sent to Conservator of Forest, Malan for attending the next date of hearing to defend the cause of State. 8. The aforesaid documents, placed on record by learned Deputy Advocate General, falsify the stand of petitioner that process for confiscation has not been initiated and that notice of confiscation has not been issued to petitioner Sadh Mohammad. Communication dated 1.10.2019 is a notice under Section 52-B of Indian Forest Act whereby show cause notice has been issued to petitioner and Nasib Singh that why resin along with vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act. 9. Communication dated 1.10.2019 is a notice under Section 52-B of Indian Forest Act whereby show cause notice has been issued to petitioner and Nasib Singh that why resin along with vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 52-A of Indian Forest Act. 9. Petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts necessary for adjudication of case, rather, he has tried to mislead the Court by stating that no process has been undertaken by Authorized Officer for confiscation nor any notice thereof was issued to petitioner. 10. As a matter of fact, petitioner had approached the Authorized Officer vide application dated 20.8.2019 for release of truck in his favour and thereafter, notice was issued by Authorized Officer to all concerned in this regard on 3.1.2020, but before that, Authorized Officer had already initiated the process for confiscation of recovered resin as well as vehicle, whereas, application before the Magistrate was filed on 8.3.2021 wherein all aforesaid facts were concealed. 11. It is apparent from material placed before me that Section 59-B of Indian Forest Act was operative at the time of filing the application before the Magistrate as well as before this Court. In aforesaid circumstances, present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.