JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.3226 of 2023. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner filed a petition in the said Complaint Case instituted by the concerned officer of the Forest Department for release of his truck bearing registration No. UP 21CN 9746. When the matter was taken up on 24.05.2024, it was intimated to the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih that Confiscation Case No.06 of 2024 has been initiated in respect of the said truck as well as the goods loaded thereon. Considering the same, the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the said vehicle in his favour. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Paul vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in MANU/JH/1098/2022 and submits that therein the co-ordinate Bench taking into consideration the facts of that case to the effect that the confiscation proceeding has already been completed and the order has been passed, it was of the opinion that under Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Bihar Amendment, the petitioner of that case should exhaust all the forums and get relief from those forums and dismissed the revision application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sarju Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand reported in MANU/JH/1906/2015 wherein the co-ordinate Bench ordered that the petitioner of that case may appear before the confiscation authority and file his show-cause and a petition for release of the vehicle but in the same paragraph went on to order that the order of release of vehicle will be the subject to final decision of the confiscation case. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Madhukhar Rao reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 367 and submits that therein in paragraph-17, it has been observed that in respect of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 that the same does not in any way affect the Magistrate’s power to make an order of interim release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the driver of the petitioner, in order to make illegal gain for himself, loaded wood on truck without giving any intimation to the petitioner. It is next submitted that upon filing of the petition for release of the truck, a report was called for by the court concerned and thereafter a confiscation proceeding has been initiated and the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih failed to take into consideration the said facts, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Divisional Forest Officer & Another vs. G. V. Sudhakar Rao & Others reported in (1985) 4 SCC 573 and submits that the confiscation proceeding and criminal case are two separate and distinct proceedings. So, merely because there was an acquittal of the accused in a trial by the Magistrate for paucity of evidence or otherwise; did not necessarily entail in nullifying the order of confiscation of the seized timber or forest produce by the Authorized Officer. It is next submitted that in view of specific bar under Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar Amendment, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner in view of getting the intimation of the confiscation proceeding. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. It is next submitted that in view of specific bar under Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar Amendment, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner in view of getting the intimation of the confiscation proceeding. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act, 9 of 1999 which reads as under:- “[52-C. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts etc. in certain circumstances.- (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of Section 52 about initiation of proceeding for confiscation of property by the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, or Tribunal (other than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and Revision Authority referred to in Sections 52, 52A and 52B) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which proceedings for confiscation or any other law for the time being in force. Explanation. - Where under any law for the time being in force, two or more courts have jurisdiction to try forest offence, then on receipt of intimation under sub-section (1) of Section 52 by one of the Courts of Magistrates having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt of intimation under that provision by all the Courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. A plain reading of Section 52-C of the Indian Forest Act makes it abundantly clear that the same bars any court or tribunal to have any jurisdiction, to make order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property, in respect of which, intimation of initiation of the confiscation proceeding under Section 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act, is given. Now coming to the facts of this case, the undisputed fact remains that as on 24.05.2024 when the impugned order was passed, the Confiscation Case No.06 of 2024 in respect of the vehicle sought to be released, was already initiated and intimation of initiation of such confiscation proceeding was already made to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. as there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to release the vehicle, on the ground that the confiscation proceeding in respect of the same by the competent authority has already been initiated and the intimation of the same has been given to the SDJM, Giridih. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.