WP(C) 2367/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner . Also heard Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 12.3.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.25/2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar by contending that the said judgment has been passed without any jurisdiction in view of the provisions laid down under Section 4-C of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 wher e it is provided that person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 49(4) or Section 49-B of the Forest Regulation, can prefer an Appeal to the District Jud ge having jurisdiction of the area within which property has been seized. In this case the truck bearing No.MZ-01-E-7003 of the petitioner has been ordere d to be confiscated by the Authorized Officer-cum-DFO, Cachar on 18.9.2009. By o rder dated 31.10.2009, the Reviewing Authority-cum-Conservator of Forests has su stained the confiscation order by rejecting the Review Application. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 concedes that th e release order has been passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge contrary to the jurisdiction conferred under the Forest Regulation. However, he submits that the truck owner has remedy under Section 49-C of the Forest Regulation and the respondent No.1 may be permitted to avail of such remedy. In view of above the submission made by Mr. Bora that the impugned release orde r dated 12.3.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.25/2009, has been passed without jurisdictio n, is accepted. The said order is quashed accordingly. However, the respondent No.1 is permitted to take recourse to such remedy in law as may be available to him, to challenge the confiscation order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.