The court affirmed interim custody of a seized vehicle, establishing that custody can be granted before conviction under the Wild Life Act.

O R D E R

Dated this the 04^th day of March, 2026 The respondent’s vehicle bearing registration No.KL-35/A-5666 was seized by the petitioner alleging that the accused used the vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (‘Act’, in short).

2. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, the respondent filed an application, under Section 451 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur (‘learned Magistrate’, for short). By Annexure A1 order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application, subject to conditions. One of the condition in the order was that the respondent shall furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.4,00,000/-. Subsequent to Annexure A1 order, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.1574/2020 to seize and confiscate the vehicle, and the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.4909/2020 to lift the condition directing him to furnish the bank guarantee for Rs.4,00,000/-. The learned Magistrate, consolidated and jointly heard the applications. By the impugned Annexure A2 order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the respondent, modifying the condition to furnish the bank guarantee and directed the respondent to execute a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum. The application filed by the petitioner was not considered. Aggrieved by Annexure A2 order, the petitioner has filed the Crl.M.C

3. I have heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the vehicle in question was seized in 2017, that is about 9 years back. In view of the inordinate delay in seizing the vehicle the learned Magistrate granted interim custody of the vehicle to the respondent.

5. One of the principle contentions raised in the Crl.M.C is that the learned Magistrate had no inherent jurisdiction to review his own order in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C.

6. In Pathu v. State of Kerala and others [1975 KLT

696] and a catena of subsequent decisions this Court has held that, an order passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C is interlocutory in nature. The court does not become functus officio, and has the power to modify an interim custody order.

7. It was relying on the principles laid down in the above decisions, the learned Magistrate modified the condition in Annexure A1 order and directed the vehicle to be released to the respondent on him executing a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said finding.

8. The other contention is that whether the vehicle used for committing an offence under the Act can be released to its registered owner on interim custody.

9. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 51 (2) of the Act, which reads as follows:

“(2) When any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the Court trying the offence may order that any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, meat, ivory imported into India or an article made from such ivory, any specified plant, or part or derivative thereof in respect of which the offence has been committed, and any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon, used in the commission of the said offence be forfeited to the State Government and that any licence or permit, held by such person under the provisions of this Act, be cancelled.”

10. A reading of the above provision establishes that it is only if an accused is convicted of the offence under the Act, a vehicle used to commit an offence under the Act, can be forfeited by the State Government.

11. In the case at hand, it is an undisputed