Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN – Appellant
Versus
CHACKO MATHEW – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. vehicle seized under wildlife law can be granted interim custody. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. interim custody withdrawal requires showing conviction under wildlife regulations. (Para 2 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court can modify its own interim orders in the best interest of justice. (Para 12) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 04th 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 directin
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
