Point of Law: mere seizure of any property including vehicle on the charge of commission of an offence would not make property to be of the State Government under Section 39(1)(d) of the Act of 1972, unless there is finding returned by the criminal court that said vehicle seized has been used for committing offence.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present CRMP assailing the order dated 26.07.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.138/2018 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg whereby the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge while affirming the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, District Durg, has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner wherein the application of petitioner for releasing his vehicle on Supurdnama has been rejected.

2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the offending vehicle of the present applicant motorcycle Hero Passion Pro vehicle bearing registration C.G. 04 KR 5108 was seized by the Forest Sub-Division Range Patan under the Durg Forest Sub-Division, forest crime No.5692/2013 alleging that the case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 9 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 against accused persons. The forest Division Durg has filed complaint on the basis of which Criminal Case No.5692/2013 was registered against Makhan Duruv, Laxminarayan, Dhaniram, Prahlad, Indrakumar, Gajanand, Sonuram for commission of offence under Section 9 and 52 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It was alleged that on 07.06.2018 in sub area Patan at village Sipkonha on receiving secret information from the house of Pushkar that wild pig was killed, on such information Forest Officer conducted a raid whereby five accused persons have been arrested from whom the Police seized mass of wild pig 1.1/2kg, 1 plastic bori stained with blood of 50Kg, one plastic bucket of 14 litre, 2 pieces wooden and 3 motorcycles and also seized 6 bicycles thereafter final report submitted before concerned Magistrate and trial is pending consideration and two have been absconded from the place of incident and they have been arrested on 08.06.2018 and after that they have been submitted before Judicial Magistrate First Class and thereafter they have filed bail application and the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the accused.

3. The present petitioner has filed an application under Section 457 of CrPC for releasing of vehicle on Supurdnama of vehicle bearing registration C.G. 07 AR 1628 mainly contending that the vehicle is being kept in open space more than 15 days which deteriorates the vehicle and he will abide by any condition imposed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Neither he will transfer the vehicle nor he will sell the vehicle and he will also abide with condition imposed by trial Court.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide its order dated 25.06.2018 has rejected the same by recording the finding that the vehicle was used for illegal hunting of wild pig and for their distribution. The offence relates to wild life which is of a serious nature, prima facie, involvement of the vehicle is there, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Against that order the petitioner has preferred criminal revision before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, who in turn by impugned order dated 26.07.2018 has rejected the revision by affirming the findings that the vehicle was used for transportation of forest pig meat and therefore, the vehicle is involved in the serious offence related to wild life. Accordingly, criminal revision was rejected. Both the orders have been assailed by the petitioner by filing this petition before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant was not involved in the offence and his vehicle has been used without his knowledge, the vehicle has been seized only on the basis of suspicions causing irreparable loss to the petitioner. He would further submit that even from the perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that the Forest Officer has wrongly seized the said vehicle. He would further submit that he will abide with any condition imposed by the Court therefore, the order dated 26.07.2018 passed by