Alam, J. -- 1. This judgment will dispose of the four appeals in all of which the same question arises for consideration. The question is whether a vehicle or vessel etc. seized under section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is put beyond the power of the Magistrate to direct its release during the pendency of trial in exercise of powers under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). On behalf of the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, it is strongly contended that the answer to the question would be only in the affirmative. The contention appears to us to be ex facie untenable but in order to examine the stand of the State Government it would be necessary to state the facts and circumstances in which the question arises and to take note of the relevant provisions of law in light of which it is to be answered.

2. The facts of the case are taken from Civil Appeal No.5199 of 2001, the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madhukar Rao, which was the leading case before the High Court. On March 12, 1997 of about 3:30 a.m., in course of checking a Sub-Inspector of Excise found a Tata Sumo vehicle, bearing Registration No. MH31- H/6919, carrying 206 kgs. of antlers. The vehicle was owned by Madhukar Rao, the respondent, but he was not in it of the time of checking. The Excise Sub-Inspector informed the officers of the Forest Department who registered a case being Offence No.6527/ 97 under section 39, 42, 43, 44, 49 (kha) of the Act. The four persons occupying the vehicle were arrested and the vehicle and the antlers were seized under section 50(1)(c) of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, was duly informed about the institution of the case of March 13, 1997.

3. The respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, moved the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur on May 12, 1997 for its release on Supurdnama. On behalf of the respondent it was stated that he was not an accused in the case and he had no concern with the commission of any offences. It was further stated that his neighbour Shri Lohiya, one of the accused in the case, had borrowed the vehicle on the pretext of going to see his ailing father. The Magistrate allowed the petition and directed for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama by order, dated May 12, 1997.

4. Against the order of the Magistrate, the State Government filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Raipur. In the revision, it was stated that the Magistrate had erred in allowing the release of the vehicle in disregard of section 39(d) of the Act in terms of which the seized vehicle became the property of the Government and hence, the Court had no power to release it on Supurdnama. It was further contended that the power of release under section 451 of the Code could be exercised only in respect of vehicles seized by a police officer. The Sessions Judge by order dated June 5, 1997 allowed the revision, relying upon a Bench decision of the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in LPA No.152 of 1996 (Here it is stated on behalf of the State that the SLP filed against the order in the LPA was dismissed by this Court in limine).

5. After the revision was allowed and the order of release passed by the Magistrate was set aside, the Wild Life Warden and Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur passed an order on June 16, 1997 declaring the seized vehicle as Government property it terms of section 39(d) of the Act.

6. The respondent then went to the High Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.4421 of 1997, challenging the decision of the Sessions Judge and seeking a direction for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama as ordered by the Magistrate. The case of the present respondent along with three other cases (giving rise to the three other appeals in this batch) was finally heard by a Full Bench. Dharmadhikari, J. (as his Lordship then was) who authored the Full Bench judgment held and found that the Magistrate's po