important point
Section 50 of the Act does not oust application of section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Headnote:(a)Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 50 – The submission that Section 50 and the other provisions in Chapter VI of the Act exclude the application of any provisions of the Code is not acceptable – The expression ‘according to law’ occurring in sub-section (4) of section 50 undoubtedly widens the scope and plainly indicates the application of the provisions of the Code.(Para 16)
       (b)Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 50 – Deletion of sub-section (2) and its replacement by sub-section (3-A) in Section 50 of the Act had no effect on the powers of the Magistrate to release the seized vehicle during the pendency of trial under the provisions of the Code.(Para 17)
       (c)Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 50(1)(c) r/w Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – The provisions of Section 50 of the Act and the amendments made thereunder do 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.(Para 20)
       (2002)4 SCC 713 – Relied upon.
       (2002)9 SCC 90 – Distinguished.
       (d)Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 39(1)(d) – Provision of Section 39(1)(d) would come into play only after a court of competent jurisdiction found the accusation and the allegations made against the accused as true and recorded the finding that the seized article was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence – Any attempt to operationalise Section 39(1)(d) of the Act merely on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations leveled by the departmental authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provisions and would render it unconstitutional and invalid. (Para 21)
       Facts of the case:
       1.On March 12, 1997 at about 3.30 a.m., in course of checking a Sub-Inspector of Excise found a Tata Sumo vehicle, bearing Registration No.MH.31-H/6919, carrying 206 kgs. of antlers. The vehicle was owned by Madhukar Rao, the respondent, but he was not in it at the time of checking. Four persons occupying the vehicle were arrested and the vehicle and the antlers were seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Act.
       2. The respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, moved the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur on May 12, 1997 for its release on Supurdnama. The Magistrate allowed the petition and directed for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama by order, dated May 12, 1997.
       3.The Sessions Judge by order, dated June 5, 1997 allowed the revision.
       4.The full bench of the High Court held and found that the Magistrate’s power to release a vehicle during the pendency of trial was not, in any way, affected by the legislative changes in the Act relied upon by the State and in appropriate cases it was fully open to the Magistrate to pass an order of interim release of a seized vehicle.
       Findings of the Court:
       Section 50 of the Act does not oust application of section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

judgment

Aftab Alam. J. —

1.This judgment will dispose of the four appeals in all of which the same question arises for consideration. The question is whether a vehicle or vessel etc. seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is put beyond the power of the Magistrate to direct its release during the pendency of trial in exercise of powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). On behalf of the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, it is strongly contended that the answer to the question would be only in the affirmative. The contention appears to us to be ex facie untenable but in order to examine the stand of the State Government it would be necessary to state the facts and circumstances in which the question arises and to take note of the relevant provisions of law in light of which it is to be answered.

2.The facts of the case are taken from Civil Appeal No.5199 of 2001, the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madhukar Rao, which was the leading case before the High Court. On March 12, 1997 at about 3.30 a.m., in course of checking a Sub-Inspector of Excise found a Tata Sumo vehicle, bearing Registration No.MH.31-H/6919, carrying 206 kgs. of antlers. The vehicle was owned by Madhukar Rao, the respondent, but he was not in it at the time of checking. The Excise Sub-Inspector informed the officers of the Forest Department who registered a case being Offence No.6527/97 under Sections 39, 42, 43, 44, 49(Kha) and 51(Kha) of the Act. The four persons occupying the vehicle were arrested and the vehicle and the antlers were seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, was duly informed about the institution of the case on March 13, 1997.

3. The respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, moved the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur on May 12, 1997 for its release on Supurdnama. On behalf of the respondent it was stated that he was not an accused in the case and he had no concern with the commission of any offences. It was further stated that his neighbour Shri Lohiya, one of the accused in the case, had borrowed the vehicle on the pretext of going to see his ailing father. The Magistrate allowed the petition and directed for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama by order, dated May 12, 1997.

4. Against the order of the Magistrate, the State Government filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Raipur. In the revision, it was stated that the Magistrate had erred in allowing the release of the vehicle in disregard of Section 39(d) of the Act in terms of which the seized vehicle became the property of the Government and hence, the court had no power to release it on Supurdnama. It was further contended that the power of release under Section 451 of the Code could be exercised only in respect of vehicles seized by a police officer. The Sessions Judge by order, dated June 5, 1997 allowed the revision, relying upon a Bench decision of the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.P.A.No.152 of 1996. (Here it is stated on behalf of the State that the S.L.P. filed against the order in the L.P.A. was dismissed by this Court in limine).

5. After the revision was allowed and the order of release passed by the Magistrate was set aside, the Wild Life Warden and Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur passed an order on June 16, 1997 declaring the seized vehicle as Government property in terms of Section 39(d) of the Act.

6.The respondent then went to the High Court at Jabalpur, in Writ Petition No.4421 of 1997, challenging the decision of the Sessions Judge and seeking a direction for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama as ordered by the Magistrate. The case of the present respondent along with three other cases (giving rise to the three other appeals in this batch) was finally heard by a full bench. Dharmadhikari,J. (as His Lordship then was) who authored the full bench judgment held and fou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 38

important pointSection 50 of the Act does not oust application of section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Cases Referred (2)

important point
Section 50 of the Act does not oust application of section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.