Heard

1. This petition is against the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge Dhamtari in Criminal Revision No.3/2018. By such order, the revisional Court has affirmed the rejection of application for custody of the vehicle seized in Crime No.407/2017 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code & under Sections 9, 39, 48-A, 49 & 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and under Section 26(1) J of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also under Section 30 of the Arms Act.

2. It has been contended before this Court that after framing of charge, the offence under Section 9 & 48-A of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) and Section 379 of I.P.C. and Section 30 of the Arms Act has been framed by the Judicial Magistrate.

3. As per the prosecution case on 03.10.2017, in a farm house which is adjacent to the forest, the petitioner has killed Cheetal by his .22 bore Rifle and shot him down and in order to consume the meat took it in a XUV vehicle bearing No.C.G.05/MB/2656 and from Vishrampur forest came to Dhamtari. The dead Cheetal and flesh and vehicle were seized, thereafter, the charge sheet was filed. During pendency before the Court, an application was filed for custody of the vehicle which was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 10.01.2018. Thereafter, the same was subject of challenge in a revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge also dismissed the petition and relied on the averments made in the order of the Judicial Magistrate that the vehicle has been sent for confiscation and a communication to this effect exists by a letter dated 05.10.2017. Therefore, the Court was not within its power to give the vehicle on supurdnama.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Court below completely misconceived the interpretation of statute as the rejection of the custody of vehicle has been made under Section 50(3A) of the Act, 1972, which has been applicable in this case. It is stated that the ground on which custody is rejected speaks about the animal and here in this case the custody was sought for of the vehicle. It is further contended that unless and until the Court which is trying the offence has convicted the offender, the confiscation order cannot be passed by any other authority as provided under Section 51(2) of the Act, 1972. He therefore submits under the circumstances, since the trial is pending adjudication, no bar exists in giving the custody of the vehicle. Accordingly, the custody of vehicle may be allowed to be given to the petitioner.

5. Learned State counsel opposes the argument and submits that the order passed by the Court below is well merited, which do not call for any interference.

6. Perused the documents and reply of the State.

7. The rejection of the vehicle has been made under Section 50(3) (A) of the Act, 1972. For the sake of brevity, sub Section 3(A) of Section 50 which falls under Chapter VI of the Act, 1972 reproduced herein under :

(3A). Any officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or an Assistant Conservator of Forests, who or whose subordinate, has seized any captive animal or wild animal under clause (c) of sub-section (1) may give the same for custody on the execution by any person of a bond for the production of such animal if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.

8. Therefore, reading of the aforesaid Section on which the application for the custody of the vehicle has been rejected is only meant for the animal and not for the vehicle. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that sub-section 3A of Section 50 of the Act, 1972 was wrongly been interpreted by the Court below. Further, sub section 4 of Section 50 provides that any things seized under the power in exercise of Section 50 shall forthwith be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to law under intimation