1. In pursuance to the order-sheet dated 31.1.2019, the matter is heard finally.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.12.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 50/2018 decided by the District and Sessions Judge, Panna.

3. On 20.7.2018 the petitioner's vehicle Bolero Pick-up bearing registration No. UP90-T-2766 was transporting five buffaloes. The Sub Inspector of Police Station Ajaygarh has made a sudden inspection and checked the vehicle in question and found that five buffaloes were being transported in very cruel manner, therefore, he seized the vehicle on the spot alongwith Buffaloes. An FIR was also registered against the driver vide Crime No. 244/2018 for the offence punishable under section 11(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for brevity "Act, 1960") read with section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner preferred an application under section 457 of CrPC asking for release of the vehicle bearing registration No. UP90-T-2766. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the vehicle sought to be released cannot be released as the proceeding for its confiscation is being initiated. Thereafter, a criminal revision was preferred against the order of JMFC but revision was also dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Panna vide order dated 1.12.2018 giving reference of the order of the JMFC and also taking note of the letter dated 20.7.2016 written by Station Incharge Ajaygarh District Panna to District Magistrate Panna for initiating confiscation proceeding against the vehicle seized and in response to the same, the Collector Panna vide letter dated 24.9.2018 intimated the JMFC Ajaygarh that in Crime No. 244/2018 the proceeding for confiscation is being initiated for the seized vehicle bearing registration No. UP90-T-2766. Considering the same, the revisional Court rejected the application observing that the proceeding of confiscation for seized vehicle since already initiated by the Collector, therefore, the vehicle cannot be released. The objection was raised regarding competency and jurisdiction of the Collector for confiscation of the vehicle but the revisional Court has rejected the said objection on the ground that no law has been shown to him by the petitioner that the Collector Panna has no jurisdiction to initiate confiscation proceeding and further nothing has been shown by the petitioner as to whether the JMFC has any competence to determine the said question about the competency of the Collector to initiate confiscation proceeding of the seized vehicle and accordingly the order of JMFC was found prefect and revision was dismissed.

5. In the present petition, the petitioner is mainly contending that under the provisions of Act, 1960, the Collector has no authority to initiate the confiscation proceeding of a seized vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order if any passed by the Collector for confiscating the vehicle, is without jurisdiction and therefore the vehicle seized by the police be released.

6. Since this Court vide order dated 12.12.2018 granted order of status quo in respect of the confiscation proceeding, therefore, no further action was taken in respect of the proceeding of confiscation of the vehicle.

7. The State was given time to file their response so also to seek instructions regarding competence of the Collector, however, instead of filing the reply to the petition, an application for vacating of status quo order dated 12.12.2018 has been filed by the State mentioning therein that under section 102 of CrPC the Police Officer is competent to seize any material including the vehicle if found involved in any offence which shows that nothing wrong has been committed by the police authority as well as the Collector for initiating the confiscation proceeding against the seized vehicle. The respondents have requ