Dharmadhikari, J.–1. A common order is being passed in this petition with a batch of petitions W.P. No. 1189/98, Amar Chand Jain and another v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 1236/98, Kripa Shankar Singh v. State of M.P. and others and W.P. No. 3769/97, Umashankar Bhargava v. State of M.P. and others as common question of general importance arises for decision.

2. The question raised is whether as a result of deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as an effect of the provisions of Section 39(1)(d) of the said Act, there exists no power with the Authorities under the Act or the Code to release any vehicle used in the course of alleged commission of an offence under the Act. Learned Single Judge I.P. Rao, (as he then was) in State of M.P. v. Sayed Yahya Ali, 1995 (II) MPWN 124 = 1995 MPLJ 791 and a division bench at Gwalior consisting of Justice S.Dwivedi and Justice S.S. Jha in its Judgment in L.P.A. No. 152/99, State of M.P. v. Asad Amin decided on 8.5.1996 have taken a view that after omission of Section 50(3) read with Section 39(1)(d) of the Act power to release any seized vehicle for alleged commission of the offence under the Act no longer exists in any Court. One of us namely learned brother Dipak Misra, J. in his order of reference dated 23.3.1998 to this Bench has raised serious doubt on the correctness of the single bench decision of this Court in the case of Sayed Yahya Ali (supra) and the Division Bench decision of Gwalior in the case of Asad Amin (supra). In taking the aforesaid view the division bench at Gwalior has also made reference and relied on the decision in Rajkumar Agarwal v. Superintendent of Police. Sarguja. 1975 MPLJ 568 = 1975 JLJ 159 and Laxmi Chand v. State of M.P. 1995 JLJ 746.

3. For deciding the legal question, general scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions will have to be critically examined. As the preamble of the Act states that the legislation has been brought for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto as there has been rapid decline of India' s wild animals and forest growth. The Act underwent several amendments by Act No. 23 of 1982, Act No. 44 of 1991 and Act No. 26 of 1993. The object and reasons for Amendment Act of 44/91 which with other amendments resulted in omission of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act and introduction of sub-Clause (d) to sub-section (1) to Section 39 deserve to be noticed and to which our attention was drawn on behalf of the State. The object and reasons read as under :-

"The penalties for various offences are proposed to be suitably enhanced to make them deterrent. The Central Government officers as well as individuals now can also file complaints in the Courts for offences under the Act. It is also proposed to provide for appointment of Honorary Wild Life Wardens and payment of rewards to persons helping in apprehension of offenders."

4. Section 2 of the Act contains ‘Definition clauses' sub-clause (14) defines government property. It means any property referred to in Section 39 or Section 17-H. In clause 33 of Section 2 vehicle' is defined, means any conveyance used for movement on land, water or air and includes buffalo, bull, bullock camel, donkey, elephant. horse and mule. Section 39, sub-section (1) thereunder and clauses (a) to (d) which are most relevant for deciding the legal question before us needs full reproduction :-

"39. Wild animals, etc. to be Government property--(1) Every –

(a) Wild animal, other than vern1in, which is hunted under Section 1 or sub-section (1) or Section 29 or sub-section (6) of Section 35 or kept or bred in captivity or hunted in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or found dead, or killed by mistake; and

(b) animal article, trophy or uncured trophy or meat derived from any wild animal referred to in clause (a) in respect of which any offence against this Act or