ORDER :

1. Probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police of the respondent-Police Station lodged a written complaint before the respondent-Police on 1.2.2019 at 12.45 hours.

2. The summary of the said complaint is that on 1.2.2019, at about 4.10 a.m., while he was on the night patrolling, he noticed a motorcar coming from Mirkal village towards Belur Village. The complainant who was in his Jeep along with other staff, in order to stop the car and check it, got down from the Jeep, at that time, the inmates of the Car noticing the police in Uniform, took a turn and attempted to flee away. However, the complainant and his staff chased them and could able to stop the said car at a distance, at that time, about five to six inmates got down from the car and aimed their weapon at the police staff. When these police also got down of their Jeep with their arms, the inmates of the car ran away from the place. The complainant brought the said car by toeing it to the respondent-Police and joined by the additional staff, proceeded to the place of incident and searched for the accused, but could not able to trace them. However, he drew a panchanama in the presence of panchas. The motorcar used by the alleged accused was also inspected and it was noticed that in the said car, there was a dead body of a Deer with bullet injury and one more cut head of the Deer, the cut portion/muscles of a Deer in two bags and 23 empty cartridges of .22 Rifle cocas and 60 live bullets of .22 Rifle and Indian Arms Licence No.3, standing in the name of Mohammad Jafar Ali, son of Mohammad Alitippu Sultan. The complaint was registered in the respondent-Police Station in Crime No.9/2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Wild Life Act’), Sections 307, 353 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC’) and under Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959.

3. FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate, before whom the present petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Cr.P.C.), seeking release of the motorcar seized by the complainant-Police in the matter. However, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 29.4.2019, rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.41/2019, under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the learned II Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at Basavakalyan. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 1.7.2019, rejected the said Revision Petition. It is against the said orders passed by the lower Courts, the present petitioner has preferred this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that until and unless it is proved that the alleged vehicle seized by the police was involved in the alleged commission of the crime, the State cannot retain the vehicle as its property. As such, the Courts below were at an error in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed seeking the release of the vehicle. In his support, he relied upon an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.8713/2018 and connected matters, disposed of on 1.2.2019 (Annappa vs. The State Through the Range Forest Officer and another).

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that by virtue of Section 39 (d) of the Wild Life Act, the seized property, which is the car in the instant case, becomes the property of the State Government, as such, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner seeking release of the vehicle. Section 39(d) of the Act reads as below:

“Section 39. Wild animals, etc., to be Government property.

(1) Every –

(a) xxx

(b) xxx

(c) xxx

(d) : vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for commit