1. This application is filed under section 482 CrPC

2. The facts giving rise to this application are that on 12.4.2013 Police Station -Khargone, District Khargone received a source information on the basis of which, vehicle bearing registration No.MP46-G-0324 was intercepted and it was found that in the vehicle some cow progeny were being transported in cruel conditions and it was alleged that cow progeny was being taken to Maharashtra for slaughter.

3. On receipt of confiscation of aforesaid vehicle, the concerning District Magistrate at Khargone initiated a confiscation proceedings and vide order dated 29.7.2013 an order was passed against the present applicant confiscating the vehicle then the present applicant filed an appeal against this order and the Commissioner while sitting as appellate authority under the Act also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Collector.

4. Meanwhile, the applicant also faced trial under section 4/6 Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and section 11A of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in Criminal Case No.1101/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Khargone. The learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 8.9.2014 acquitted the accused from the charges under the aforementioned sections and further for disposal of seized property the learned Magistrate directed that vehicle be handed over to the registered owner of the vehicle after period specified for filing of appeal is lapsed.

5. Placing reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh; [2000(1) JLJ 304=1999 MP CANDID 425], which was also, reported in 2000(1) MPLJ 289 and judgment of single bench of this Court in Premdas v. State of M.P.; [2013(2) MPLJ 218], in which it was held that till conclusion of criminal trial a confiscation of vehicle should not be done.

6. In the case of Madhukar Rao (supra), Division Bench of this Court answered the question whether as a result of deletion of sub-section 2 of section 50 of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and as an effect of provisions of section 39 (1) D of the Act there exists no power with the authorities under the Act to release any vehicle used in the course of alleged commission of an offence and also whether the provisions of the Act barred the jurisdiction of Magistrate under section 452 CrPC for interim disposal of the seized property.

7. Division Bench of this Court observed in para 23 of the judgment as under :-

“23. In our respectful opinion as the Supreme Court has not dealt with the legal question involved, we can consider the correctness of the Division Bench decision and decide a legal question referred to us by the learned Single Judge. As a result of the detailed discussion above, we hold that any property including vehicle seized on accusation or suspicion of commission of an offence under the Act can, on relevant grounds and circumstances, be released by the Magistrate pending trial in accordance with section 504 read with section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We also hold that mere seizure of any property including vehicle on the charge of commission of an offence would not make the property to be of the State Government under section 391(d) of the Act. The legal question thus posed by the learned Single Judge is answered accordingly. Let this petition and the connected petitions be now placed before the appropriate Bench for their decision on merits.”

8. In this judgment, it is also observed by this Court that provisions of Wild Life Act are different than provisions of Forest Act and therefore, two acts cannot be equated with each other.

9. Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, there are not provisions analogous to the provisions of the Act that on receipt of information, the District Magistrate is given a power to confiscate the property seized under the Act. In this view of the matter, whether till disposal of the criminal trial,