SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(MP) 984

I.P.RAO
State of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Sayed Yahya Ali – Respondent


Advocates:
R.K. Khare, Govt. Advocate for State; Manish Datt for respondent.

JUDGMENT

This is a revision filed by the State aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge; Bhopal, dated 10.2.92 in Cr. Revision No. 17/92 directing the release of the jeep to the respondent on furnishing security.

Shri R.K. Khare, learned Govt. Advocate, submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal, is illegal by virtue of the amendment brought out to section 38 of the Wild Life Protection (Amendment) Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which has come into effect from 2.10.91. That amendment lays down that any vehicle that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act shall be the property of the Government. This amendment referred to above clearly lays down that the vehicle which is involved in the offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act, shall be the property of the State Government.

As a consequence of amending section 39, section 50 of the original Act has also been amended taking away the power to return the vehicle which has been involved in the offence and seized by the officials. By virtue of the amending Act, sub-section (2) of section 50 has been omitted.

The learn


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top