(1.) Since both these petitions raise similar questions for determination, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Petition No. 6 is directed against the order dated 1-1 -2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu whereby the order dated 31-3-2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I-Class, Manali, directing the release of wooden doors, seized by the police in case FIR No. 71/03, dated 24-3-2003, under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, has been set aside.

(3.) Petition No. 7 is directed against the order dated 1-1-2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu whereby the order dated 26-3-2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I-Class, Manali, directing the release of vehicle, i.e. Jeep No. HP-58-0864, seized by the police in the aforesaid FIR, has been set aside.

(4.) The facts relevant for the purpose of consideration of these petitions are that in the aforesaid FIR a police party on checking of Mahindra Jeep No. HP-58-0864 took in possession 20 doors of wood which were transported in the said vehicle without any permit. The vehicle was also seized. The petitioners were booked for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 41 read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

(5.) Petitioners Sohan Singh moved an application for release of the seized wooden doors in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, I-Class, Manali who vide his order dated 31-3-2003 directed release of the said doors. Petitioner Manoj Kumar moved an application in the said Court for release of the seized vehicle which was also allowed vide order dated 26-3-2003. Being aggrieved, the State preferred two revision petitions in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge which were allowed and the orders passed by the learned Magistrate directing release of the seized doors and the Jeep were set aside by the impugned orders. Hence, these petitions by the aggrieved petitioners.

(6.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the records.

(7.) A perusal of the records reveals that the proceedings regarding confiscation of the wooden articles and the vehicle had been initiated by the police before the Authorised Officer on 25-3-2003 under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, as applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The learned Magistrate below directed release of the seized properties vide orders dated 26-3-2003 and 31-3-2003. These orders had evidently been passed during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 52-A of thebefore the Authorised Officer. Thus, the only question involved for determination is as to whether during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 52-A of thethe Magistrate had the power to direct release of the seized property

(8.) Section 52-A of theauthorizes a Forest Officer or a Police Officer to seize any forest produce together with all tools, ropes etc. if he has reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed with respect to such forest produce. Section 52-A of the Act, as applicable in Himachal Pradesh, provides that so seized property should be produced by the Seizing Officer before an Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf without any unreasonable delay and the so authorised Officer, on being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of such property, order confiscation of such property together with all tools etc. and the vehicle used in committing such offence after adopting the procedure as prescribed under Section 52-B of the.

(9.) Section 59, as amended in its application to Himachal Pradesh, provides that any person aggrieved by any order passed under Section 52-A, may appeal to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property regarding which the order has been passed, had been seized and the order of the Sessions Judge passed in such appeal shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law.

(10.) Section 59-B of the Act, as applicable In Himachal Pradesh, provides that except the Officers and the Courts empowered in this behalf under Sections 52, 52-A, 59-A or the Sessions Judge, no other Officer, Court, Tribunal or Authority shall have any Jurisdiction to make order with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Forest Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, the provides self-contained procedure to deal with the specified seized properties in connection with a forest offence and bars the jurisdiction of the Officers, Tribunals, Courts, other than those empowered to deal with the seized property in the manner as aforesaid. The Magistrate, evidently, is not such Officer or- Court and his jurisdiction is specifically barred by the provisions of Section 59-B to pass any order with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property.

(11.) This being the position in law, the Judicial Magistrate below had no jurisdiction to pass the orders directing release of the wooden articles and the vehicle in question. Therefore, his orders, being without jurisdiction, have been rightly set aside by the impugned orders which do not suffer from any illegality and thus do not call for any interference.

(12.) As a result both these petitions are dismissed. Petition dismissed.