A Magistrate has jurisdiction to order interim custody of a seized firearm under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, despite its designation as government property upon seizure; judicial oversight remains essential.

judgment :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh in Criminal Revision No.8 of 2021 and 06 of 2021 as well as order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Reamal in Crl. Misc. Case No.13 of 2020 arising out of 2(b) C.C. Case No.47 of 2019.

2. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that on 08.09.2019 at about 01:45 p.m., the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Deogarh Forest Division, on receipt of reliable information, proceeded on the allegation that a villager of Nuapada had hunted a wild boar by firing a gunshot which struck the animal on the chest causing its death. On the basis of the said report, proceedings were initiated under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as “ WLPA ”) leading to seizure of properties including a licensed firearm alleged to be owned by the Petitioner. It is alleged that the gun was seized from the house of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, has categorically denied any connection with the alleged offence and asserts that the firearm ought to have been released in his favour.

3. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is the registered license holder of one 12 bore SBBL Gun bearing No. B/4-32701, Dass & Co., which has been seized in connection with 2(b) C.C. Case No. 47 of 2019 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Reamal. It is urged that since the Petitioner is the lawful owner of the firearm, he is entitled to its release in interim custody under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., subject to such conditions as the Court may impose. It is further contended that the gun has been lying in custody since the year 2019 and prolonged storage without proper upkeep will render the same irreparably damaged, which would amount to deprivation of the Petitioner’s property rights. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further places reliance on the decision of this Court in Ratnakar Behera vs. State of Odisha passed in CRLMC No. 985 of 2020, decided on 05.08.2020, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein it has been consistently held that seized articles should not be allowed to lie exposed to decay and that the Court is empowered to release the same to the owner on appropriate terms. On the strength of the said ratio, it is urged that there is no distinction in principle between a seized vehicle and a licensed firearm, and the same approach ought to be adopted to prevent wastage. It is further submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner’s prayer by the learned J.M.F.C., Reamal, and its confirmation by the revisional Court, on the reasoning that the Court is not the competent authority to order release of a firearm, is misconceived. According to the Petitioner, the Criminal Court is vested with jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. to direct interim custody, and the authority of the District Magistrate under the Arms Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Court to pass such orders. Learned counsel also draws attention to the fact that no confiscation proceeding, as contemplated under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 or the Arms Act, 1959, has been initiated in respect of the seized gun. In the a