1 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 616/2004 (Amritlal Vs. The State of Raj.) DATE OF ORDER: 08.03.2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Manish Pitaliya, for the petitioner Mr.J.P.S.Choudhary, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel that on 17th February, 2001 his Tractor No.RSH-6139 and Trolley No.RSH 6136 was searched by the police authorities and Mango woods were recovered from the Trolley. A case was registered against Driver Ratan Lal under Sections 41 & 42 of the Forest Act and thereafter investigation commenced. After usual investigation challan was filed under Sections 41 & 42 of the Fores Act. After conviction petitioner filed an application for releasing his Tractor under Section 452 Cr.P.C. His application was dismissed by the learned trial court. Against that order petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh and same was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh upheld the order of confiscation of Tractor dated 12.11.2003 passed by the 2 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chittorgarh. It is contended by the learned counsel that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was seized in connection with the offence committed by one Ratan Lal driver under the Forest Act. It is further submitted that the appellate court only on the ground that accused Ratan Lal was convicted by the learned trial court dismissed the appeal without considering his arguments and grounds taken by him for the purpose of releasing his vehicle and being the registered owner his appeal was to be decided on merits after taking into account the grounds raised by the petitioner. I have perused the order passed by the appellate court dated 9th June, 2004. It is obvious from Para No.8 of the judgment that the learned appellate court has decided the appeal only on the ground that Ratan Lal, who was driver of the vehicle was convicted for offence punishable under the Forest Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice the order impugned passed by the appellate court is set aside and the case is remitted to the appellate court, which is Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh for deciding the appeal afresh after taking into account the grounds and arguments advanced by the petitioner, who is appellant before the learned appellate court. Hence this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 9th June, 2004 is set aside and case is remitted to the 3 appellate court for fresh decision within a period of three months. The appellate court is also directed to first ascertain the fact that whether the Tractor and Trolley in question are still not auctioned and if the Tractor in question is already auctioned then this order shall not be given effect to. The record of the case be sent back to the learned appellate court. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J. BKS/-