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

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 174

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Mujahid Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and Another – Respondents
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9175 OF 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021

Point of Law : On the basis of seizure and mere accusations/allegations, Section 39(1)(d) of the 1972 Act cannot be allowed to operate and if it is so done, it would be hit by the constitutional provisions.

Headnote:

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 2 (16), 29, 49, 39(1)(d), section 11 or sub-section (1),29 or sub-section (6) of 35, 51, 50(4), 53, 51, 54, 50 and 57 - Criminal procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Claims to be owner of Maruthi Swift Dzire - Seizure/confiscation and release of seized property - Animal is hunted in a sanctuary or National Park - Petitioner claims to be owner of Maruthi Swift Dzire - Allegation against the Petitioner is that he along with two others was involved in transporting a ‘two-head Red Sand Boa Snake’ - Case vide POR was registered under Sections 2 (16), 29, 49, 50 and 57 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act - Petitioner is Accused No.3 in the said case - Offences were committed under various and under Sections 2 (16), 29, 49, 50 and 57 of Act, 1972. Respondent No. 2 contended before Trial Court that subject vehicle was seized under the provisions of Act, 1972 and Magistrate cannot direct interim release apt to discuss procedure of seizure/confiscation and release of the seized property under the Act, 1972 - Relevant provisions under the Act, 1972 - wild animal, other than vermin, which is hunted under section 11 or sub-section (1) of section 29 or sub-section (6) of section 35 or kept or bred in captivity or hunted in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or found dead, or killed or by mistake - Government such animal is hunted in a sanctuary or National Park declared by the Central Government, such animal or any animal article, trophy.

Finding of the Court:

Seeking interim custody of subject vehicle and learned Magistrate has dismissed same vide order - Petitioner has not specifically sought to quash the said Court has ample power to mould the relief and quash same by invoking its inherent power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C - Court can grant a relief not specifically claimed in the pleadings - Trial Court had erred in not considering the judgment in also the procedure laid down under the Act, 1972 cost of repetition - power to release any property seized under the Act, 1972 - Order passed by learned Junior Civil Judge - Matter is remanded back to the learned Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, with a direction to release subject vehicle on imposition of certain conditions to its satisfaction.

Result: Petition is allowed

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking a direction against Respondent No. 2 to release the crime vehicle i.e., SWIFT D’ZIRE ZDI BS V bearing Registration No.KA 36 M 7236 seized in connection with Crime No. POR 17/14-15/2020 dated 25.01.2020.

2. Heard Mr. Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Facts of the Case:

    i) The Petitioner claims to be the owner of Maruthi Swift Dzire (hereinafter the ‘subject vehicle’ bearing Registration No.KA 36 M 7236. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he along with two others was involved in transporting a ‘two-head Red Sand Boa Snake’ (Eryx Johinii). A case vide POR No. 17/14-15/2020 was registered under Sections 2 (16), 29, 49, 50 and 57 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter ‘the Act, 1972’). The Petitioner herein is Accused No. 3 in the said case. Based on the said POR, the subject vehicle was seized under the provisions of the Act, 1972.

ii) Aggrieved by the seizure the Petitioner herein filed a petition vide Crl.M.P. No. 111 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chevella. The said Crl. M.P. No. 111 of 2020 was dismissed on the ground that under Section 39(1)(d) of the Act, 1972 any vehicle seized is the property of the State Government and the Trial Court does not have jurisdiction to release the same.

iii) Therefore, the present petition is filed seeking release of the subject vehicle.

4. Contentions of the Petitioner

    i) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have engaged the petitioner’s vehicle for a trip from Gulbarga to Hyderabad on the pretext of personal work.

ii) The petitioner is no way concerned with the transportation of the ‘two-head Red Sand Boa snake’.

iii) The petitioner was under the impression that Accused Nos. 1 and 2were carrying their personal luggage in the subject vehicle.

iv) The petitioner and his family members are dependent on the subject vehicle for their livelihood.

5. Contentions of Respondent No. 2

    Any property including a vehicle seized for an offence committed under the Act, 1972 will be treated as Government property under Section 39. Such seized Government property cannot be released.

6. Analysis and Findings of the Court

    i) The facts of the case clearly indicate that offences were committed under various and under Sections 2 (16), 29, 49, 50 and 57 of the Act, 1972. Respondent No. 2 contended before the Trial Court that the subject vehicle was seized under the provisions of the Act, 1972 and the Magistrate cannot direct interim release. Therefore, it is apt to discuss the procedure of seizure/confiscation and release of the seized property under the Act, 1972. The relevant provisions under the Act, 1972 are extracted below:

“39. Wild animals, etc., to be Government property.—(1) Every—

(a) wild animal, other than vermin, which is hunted under section 11 or sub-section (1) of section 29 or sub-section (6) of section 35 or kept or bred in captivity or hunted in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or found dead, or killed or 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 any rule or order made thereunder has been committed,

(c) ivory imported into India and an article made from such ivory in respect of which any offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has been committed;

(d) vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this Act.

shall be the property of the State Government, and, where such animal is hunted in a sanctuary or National Park declared by the Central Government, such animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat 1 [derived from such animal or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting shall be the pr

    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 Back to top