IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.658 of 2008 UDAI NARAYAN SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 02.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 27.6.2008, passed by the CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (Tilauthu) PS case no. 424 of 2007 lodged under sections 413 and 120B I.P.C., section 33 of Forest Act and 4/40 of Mines Act for seizure of six tractors of petitioners carrying forest area bolders by the Tilathu Police. It is submitted by the petitioners that earlier the learned CJM, Rohtas on receipt of reports from the officer in charge, Tilauthu PS and the S.I. of that P.S. dated 26.3.2008 ordered for release of the tractors in question finding the papers of the same to be genuine on furnishing sureties bonds of Rs. 3, 00,000/- with two sureties of like amount each. It is further submitted that on the report of the Divisional Forest officer, Forest Division, Rohtas at Sasram, respondent no.5 dated 25.6.2008, annexure 4 that as the confiscation proceedings have been initiated in respect of seized tractors carrying forest boulders, order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas dated 27.3.2008 releasing the tractors is bad, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide ex-parte order dated 27.6.2008 recalled its earlier release order. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned magistrate is not legally competent to recall or review its earlier order as he has not the inherent power for the same. In support of submission, he relies on a decision rendered in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs the State of Bihar, reported in 1978 BLJ 744. - 2 - It is submitted on behalf of the State that the learned magistrate has not recalled its order rather he has directed the petitioners to produce the tractors before the DFO, respondent no.5 for convenience of disposal of confiscation proceedings pending there in respect of seizure of the vehicles. This court agrees with the view of the State counsel as in the order of release itself the learned magistrate had observed as one of the conditions that the vehicles will be produced whenever and wherever required by the court. Without going into the aspect as to whether the learned magistrate has recalled/reviewed its earlier release order, petitioners are directed to produce their tractors in question before respondent no.5 who in turn would allow the vehicles to remain with them on furnishing of undertaking that they will produce the same as and when required in the confiscation proceeding. The aforesaid order is being passed taking into note the fact that the vehicles have already been allowed to be released in favour of petitioners. Respondent no.5 is further directed to dispose of confiscation proceeding within a month from the date of receipt of this order. Release of tractors will be subject to the result of confiscation proceedings. Writ petition stands disposed of. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J)