The main legal point established is that the seizure of a vehicle under the Wild Life (Protection) Act does not automatically transfer ownership to the State, and the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle.

L. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11-6-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul, in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2001 dismissing the revision and confirming the order dated 7-6-2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Angul, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle seized for offence committed under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ('the Act', for short ).

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 15-5-2001 at night while performing night patrolling on Angul-Tikarapada PWD Road, the Divisional Forest Officer, Satkosia Wild Life Division, detected a white Tata Indica car bearing registration No. OR-02-R/2879 coming from Tikarapada area towards Angul. The car was intercepted and during search a fresh dead common Indian hare was detected lying inside the dickey of the car. Accordingly the car was seized and a seizure list was prepared on the spot. On the very day FIR was also lodged against the accused persons alleging offences committed under Section 9 read with Section 39 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that Indian hare is a wild animal specified in Schedule IV of the Act. Petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle filed a petition on 29-5-2001 for release of the car in his favour. The said petition was rejected by the learned SDJM, Angul, by order dated 7-6-2001 on the ground that under the provisions of the Act after seizure, the car has become the property of the State and there is no provision for release of the seizedvehicle under the Act. The said order was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul, in a revision which was also dismissed on the ground that the vehicle having been seized by the Forest officials, Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable and under the Act no Court has the power to release the vehicle.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges both the orders passed by the Courts below on two grounds : (1) By mere seizure of a vehicle for commission of an offence under the Act the vehicle does not automatically become the property of the State. It is further urged that so long as it is not found by a competent Court of law that the vehicle was in fact utilised for commission of the offence, the vehicle does not become the property of the State. (2) Once seizure of the vehicle is reported before the Magistrate, it is the Magistrate wo has the power to release it in exercise of power under Section 457, Cr. P. C.

( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Govt. Advocate relying on a decision of this Court, reported in (2000) 1 OLR 230; Satyabrata Majhi v. State of Orissa, argued that once a property is seized for offence committed under the provisions of the Act, it becomes the property of the State and therefore, the question of its release does not arise. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate, however does not seriously oppose the second ground of attack stating that it is covered by decisions of this Court.

( 5 ) COMING to the first question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 9 of the Act prescribes that no person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under Sections 11 and 12. Common Indian hare is given in serial No. 4 of Schedule IV and as such, hunting of common Indian hare is prohibited under Section 9 of the Act. Section 39 (1) (d) of the Act provides that every vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act shall be the property of the State Government. This Court while analysing the said provision in the aforesaid decision referred to by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate held, that the power of releasing the seized vehicle has been expressly removed by omitting sub-section (2) of Section 50 t