Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) THE sole petitioner Sanjay Kumar Khemka by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order or direction commanding upon the respondent No. 3, the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division Area, to release the vehicle i.e. Bulldozer Model D65E -12 in favour of the petitioner, which was seized in connection with B.F. Case No. 7 of 2012. The petitioner was made accused in B.F. Case No. 7 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 33, 63 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act on the allegation that this petitioner along with other accused persons, who are the officials of M/s. Electro Steel Limited, by using heavy earth moving machine, L & T Komatsu Dozer Model D65E -12, did non -forest activities over the land, which was part of the forest land. On the said allegation, the abovesaid Bulldozer was seized, thereafter a confiscation proceeding under Confiscation Case No. 3 of 2012 was initiated before the District Forest Officer, Bokaro. It further appears that the entire proceeding of B.F. Case No. 7 of 2012 was challenged before this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 1979 of 2013 and after hearing both sides, the entire criminal proceeding of the said case, pending in the Court of Smt. Arti Mala, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro was quashed. It further appears that thereafter the petitioner through his counsel tried to get his seized vehicle released, but the vehicle was not released though respondent No. 3 was fully aware of the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, but has not passed any order for release of the vehicle.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the entire criminal proceeding, in connection with B.F. Case No. 7 of 2012 wherein cognizance of the offence under Sections 33, 52 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act were taken, has been quashed, the outcome of that case showing initiation of confiscation proceeding of the vehicle in question and continuation of the said proceeding would be bad in law and the authority should have released the vehicle in question and the non -action of respondent No. 3 erodes the credibility of the public administration. Hence, the prayer is to direct the respondent No. 3 to release the vehicle in question immediately. Learned counsel representing the State fairly submitted that when the entire criminal proceeding of the main case has been quashed by this Court, the continuation of outcome of that case being confiscation case No. 3 of 2012 is certainly bad in law.
(3.) I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. After going through the order dated 28.1.2014, it is apparently clear that the entire criminal proceeding of B.F. Case No. 7 of 2012 instituted under Sections 33, 52 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act has been quashed. The pendency of above confiscation case, which is the outcome of the main proceeding, in my opinion, is not in accordance with law.;