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
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:
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
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
6. Analysis and Findings of the Court
“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
Madhya Pradesh v. Madhukar Rao
Deptt. of Forests v. J.K. Johnson.
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 prov....
Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, a vehicle used in committing an offense is deemed as government property and is not liable to be released during the trial.
Confiscation of property under wildlife laws requires a finding of guilt in a criminal trial; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The Magistrate retains the authority to grant interim release of seized property pending trial, despite the omission of a previous legislative provision that had offered similar powers to authorities....
Point of Law – Under the Act, 1967 only an authorised officer or the Divisional Forest Officer under Section 51 of the Act, 1967 can temporarily release any property used to commit an offence.
Seized vehicles must be released to owners unless confiscation proceedings are initiated; conditions include deposit of bank guarantees and ensuring no illegal use.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.