Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, a vehicle used in committing an offense is deemed as government property and is not liable to be released during the trial.

JUDGMENT :

Surendra Singh-I, J.

Heard Mohd. Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State.

2. The prosecution case against the petitioner, Devendra Kumar, and his son, Prashant Vishnoi in brief is that on receiving the information regarding illegal storage of large quantity of hide, trophies made of skulls and horn of prohibited forest animals including their meat kept in 47 packets on 29.04.2017 at 01:30 p.m., a joint team of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Forest Department, Meerut Division, Meerut, raided the residence of the petitioner, Devendra Kumar, and his son, Prashant Vishnoi situated at 36/4, Civil Lines, Meerut. From the room situated at second floor of the house, hide of leopard, hide and skull of black deer, horns of sambar and deer in large quantity and a knife with handle made of tusk, was recovered. On the ground floor, meat of prohibited wild animals kept in 47 packets in freeze container (deep freezer) was also recovered. Details of articles recovered is as follows :-

(i) one hide of leopard

(ii) one hide of deer/antelope

(iii) one skull of large antelope

(iv) 3 horns of young large antelope

(v) 9 deer skull with two horns

(vi) One deer skull with neck and horn

(vii) 7 teeth of wild animals

(viii) one knife handle sized 12 cm x 1 cm made of elephant tusk, total length with cutting part 26 cm

(ix) On the ground floor, 47 packets of meat of prohibited forest animal kept in freezer (deep freezer)

3. The petitioner, Devendra Kumar, retired colonel, informed the raiding team that the frozen meat is that of wild boar. From the aforesaid recovery, Range Case No. 6/2017-18 u/s 9, 44, 49-A, 49-B, 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Meerut, was registered against the petitioner and his son, Prashant Vishnoi.

4. The aforesaid articles recovered from the residence of the petitioner were seized, taken into possession and recovery memo was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After investigation against the petitioner and his son, challan in complaint case under the aforesaid sections was sent to the court of jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. The raiding party also seized white Fortuner vehicle no. U.K. 06 V 0044 involved in the commission of the offence from the residence of the petitioner and prepared its seizure memo dated 05.09.2017 and sent it to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

6. The petitioner filed application for release of the vehicle which was rejected vide order dated 24.04.2018 by the Magistrate concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 227 of 2018, Devendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another against the impugned order passed by the Magistrate which was rejected vide order dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut. Against the aforesaid order passed by the revisional court, the petitioner instituted Matters under Article 227 No. 8477 of 2018, Devendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another before this Court. Later on, he not pressed it and the petition vide order dated 29.03.2019 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail any other remedy available under the law.

7. Later on, the petitioner filed an application for release of aforesaid vehicle before the Prescribed Authority/Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division, Meerut which was rejected by the Divisional Director vide order dated 23.06.2019 on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to release a vehicle detained under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Against the aforesaid order of Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division, Meerut, the petitioner filed appeal before Principal Secretary of Forest/Appellate Tribunal, Department of Social Forestry, U.P. Government at Lucknow, which has been rejected by the aforesaid Principal Secretary vide order dated 14.10.2020.

8. The respondent no. 2 in his counter affidavit has emphasized the averment made in the challani report filed against the pet