WW,W,W J m m :‘ in 200 mum (W) mmm mm fw’rm %afcma1%§1 c:.M.P. No. 5(51 or 2007 n 1e Bench- Hén’ble M ustice D irendra Mishr i r. J a PETITIONER Kailash adav, aged about 27 years Son of Bhadu Yadav, Resinient of Villaga Sundongri, Police Station , Aamana a, Raipur (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENT The Stat of Chhattisgarh, ‘ Throug :The Forest Division (Van Mandal) Chhattisgarh, Raipur ,G.) 14.1 1.2007 Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Adv cate for tho petitioner. Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. .G. for the State. Heard on admission. The petitioner has fil the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. against the order dated 16. 10.2007 passed in Cr nal Revision No. 139/07, whereby the learned 3rd Ehdditional Sessions Jud ge, aipur has rejected the rev'sion filed by the petitioner 11d upheld the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ejecting the application of t e petitioner filed for interim ustody of the seized vehicleiinvolved in a forest offence. 'Perusal of the impugnefd order shows that a charge heet was filed against the: petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate 'nder Section 1 (1) of the Indian Forest'Act (for short ‘gthe Act”) and under Sections t5 a 15 of the Chhauisgarh \Qimpaj Aahiniyawe GRPRJ — FS/246—~ 2/2007 ~ 50,6‘30: l > h ( e i i m m , m 200 WW (W) “mm mam \ mwm ‘ Z; ' WW1¥w Mmm W said procseding an application under Section 457 of the Cr,P.C. was filad by the petitiOEer. During the pendency of that proceedings the forest‘officials communicated the Chief Judicial Ma‘gistrate that a separate confiscation proceedings under the Act is also pending against the petitioner and therefore, L11 View of the pendency of the confiscation proceeding as also the bar contained in Section 52 (c) of the Act the application for interim custody was rejected h} the trial court, which: was \subsequently upheld by the revisional court vide ‘ r impugned order Aftei gomg through he impugned order, l am of the con51de1ed opinion that t ere is no illegality 01 infnnnty in the questioned ordel, which calls for inteiference in the revisional jurisdic ion. The petition has no substance the same is lable to be dismissed and it is he eby dismissed at the admisswn stage itself in View of above o der, IA No 1/07 also stands dismissed. nW i i sw— ‘ i Dhirendra Mishra (I i tan Judge " GRPRJ — FS/246d 2/2007 50,0695 I ‘