Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1190
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. MADHAVI DEVI, J.
Farzeen Sulthana – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23932 of 2025
Decided On : 10-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : POLAMPELLI RAJU
For the Respondent: GP FOR FORESTS
The authority to release seized items under the Wild Life Protection Act lies with the competent Criminal Court, which must adjudicate on the allegations before any forfeiture of property can occur.
Headnote:(A) Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 - Sections 39 and 51 - Seizure of vehicle allegedly connected with wildlife offense - Petitioner seeks release of seized vehicle, arguing prolonged custody could lead to deterioration - Court holds that the authority to release seized items rests with the competent Criminal Court post-judgment on the merits of the case. The mere seizure does not equate to forfeiture of ownership; there must be a judicial finding on the usage of the seized property. As per previous rulings, the statutory provisions do not allow executive officers to forfeit property based solely on suspicion of wrongdoing. Case law interpretation emphasizes the distinction between seizure and forfeiture and reinforces that lawful proceedings must ascertain the truth of allegations before depriving individuals of their property. (Paras 5, 6, 28-41)
(B) Jurisdiction - The appropriate forum for release applications concerning wildlife offenses lies with trial Courts, not the High Court. (Para 3)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks release due to vehicle seizure (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. jurisdiction question regarding vehicle release applications (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. possession of pangolin parts prohibits vehicle release (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. petitioner must approach the criminal court for release (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents No.3 and 4 in not releasing petitioner’s vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Swift Red color bearing registration No.TG-16-C-7866, seized pursuant to the registration of POR No.1917/15, dated 19.06.2024, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents No.3 and 4 to release the vehicle and to pass such order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle i.e., Maruti Suzuki Swift Red color, bearing Registration No.TG-16-C7866 and it is submitted that the said vehicle was being used by the husband of the petitioner and the same was seized by the forest officials on the ground that they have recovered certain scales, skin and nails of the ‘pangolin’ animal from the said vehicle. Petitioner is seeking release of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle is in the custody of the forest officials since 20.06.2025 and if it is kept idle for long period, it may get deteriorated.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Forests, however, submitted that the vehicle has been seized for the offences under Wild Life Protection Act 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) and also under Telangana Forest Act and therefore, the application for release of vehicle has to be filed before appropriate Criminal Court and not before this Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Another vs. J.K. Johnson and Others , (2011) 10 SCC 794 and Madhukar Rao and State of Madhya Pradesh , (2008) 14 SCC 624 .
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Courts are not entertaining the applications for release of vehicles on the ground that the seizure of the vehicle is under the Telangana State Forest Act and outside their jurisdcition and therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court for release of vehicle.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, this Court finds that ‘Pangolin’ animal falls under Part-I, Schedule-I, Item No.28 of Wild Life Protection Act and therefore, possession of any part of such animal is forbidden under the said Act. Therefore, the offence has been registered under Sections 51 (1), (1-A) and 51 (2) of Wild Life Protection Act 1972.
6. Section 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act empowers the authorities to seize the vehicle involved in the offence under Wild Life Protection Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has submitted an application before the forest officials for release of the vehicle, the same has not been entertained and the application filed before the concerned criminal court is also not being entertained on the ground that the offence is under the Telangana State Forest Act. However, this Court finds that that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases cited supra has clearly held that where the offence is alleged to have been committed under Wild Life Protection Act, it is only the trial Court which has jurisdiction to consider the application for release of vehicle. The relevant portion of J.K. Johnson’s case are reproduced here under:-
“18. For a proper consideration of the question raised before us as noted above, it is necessary to read few relevant sections of the 1972 Act prior to amendment by Act 16 of 2003 and Section 54 after amendment with effect from April 1, 2003.
19. The 1972 Act was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the protection of wild animals and birds and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto.
