Rane

1/12

December 21, 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2834 OF 2021

SARIKA NITIN SALUNKHE

} PETITIONER

V/S.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

} RESPONDENT

* * * *

Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt. S.V. Sonawane, APP for State.

Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

Tuesday, 21^st December, 2021.

Oral Judgment :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

Question falling for my consideration is;

(i)Whether any property including vehicle seized under

Section 50(1)(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (“Act

of 1972” for short) on accusation or suspicion of

commission of offence under the Act of 1972 can be

released by the Magistrate pending trial in accordance with

Rane

2/12

December 21, 2021

Section 50(4) of the Act of 1972 read with Section 451 of

the Criminal Procedure Code ?

3.

Briefy stated, prosecution’s case is; that on 26^th

October, 2020 the Forest Authorities intercepted the truck

bearing Registration No.MH-09-EM-8479 (“vehicle” for

short). The authorities, after search of the vehicle, found

the said vehicle was allegedly carrying bauxite which was

mined, in the area of Sanctuary without permit; whereafter

the offences came to be registered vide Crime No.02/2020

under Sections 27, 29, 50 read with Section 51 of the

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (‘Act of 1972’ for short). Soon

thereafter Forest Offcer, in exercise of the powers under

Section 50(1)(c), seized the said vehicle. Afterwhich, vide

order under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., owner of the said

vehicle was ordered to produce the ownership documents

of the said vehicle. Pending investigation in the offences

under Wildlife Protection Act, offences under the Indian

Forest Act, 1927 were added. After which, Petitioner, being

owner of the vehicle, moved an application, under Section

451 of the Cr.P.C. and sought interim custody of the said

vehicle.

Rane

3/12

December 21, 2021

4.

The forest authorities, primarily questioned

maintainability of the application under Section 451 of the

Cr.P.C. on the ground that once offence is registered under

the Indian Forest Act in terms of Section 61G of the Forest

Act, any forest produce together with any tool, rope, boat,

vehicle used in committing any offence, when seized under

sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Forest Act, the

authorised offcer under Section 61A or the offcers

specially empowered under Section 61C or Sessions Judge

hearing an appeal under Section 61D, have jurisdiction and

therefore no one else can make an order with regard to the

custody, possession delivery or distribution of such

property. As such forest offcer contended that learned

Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s

application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Yet, the learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanagari, allowed the

application and directed the forest authorities to handover

interim custody of the said vehicle to the Petitioner. The

correctness and legality of that order was questioned in

Revision, by the State of Maharashtra through the

Assistant Forest Offcer, Radhanagari. The learned

Rane

4/12

December 21, 2021

Additional Sessions Judge held that the order of Magistrate

was not sustainable for want of jurisdiction and as such by

order dated 12^th April, 2021 quashed and set aside the

order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanagari.

5.

Feeling aggrieved by order passed in Revision,

Petitioner - owner of the vehicle, has approached this Court

in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

6.

Heard. Mr. Mankapure, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner and Mrs. Sonawane, learned APP for State.

7.

Before adverting to the submissions of the Counsel for

the parties, it may be said that, indisputably vehicle in

question was seized under Section 50(1)(C) of the Act of

1972 a