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.

1. A common order is being passed in this petition with a batch of petitions W.P. No. 1189/98 (Amar Chand Jain and Anr. v. The State of M.P.), W.P. No. 1236/98 (Kripa Shankar Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.), W.P. No. 3769/97 (Umashankar Bhargava v. State of M.P. and Ors.) as common question of general importance arises for decision.

2. The question raised is whether as a result of deletion of Sub-section (2) of S.50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as an effect of the provisions of S.39(1)(d) of the said Act, there exists no power with the Authorities under the Act of the Code to release any vehicle used in the course of alleged commission of an offence under the Act. Learned Single Judge I.P. Rao (as he then was) in State of M.P. v. Syed Yahya Ali (MANU / MP / 0244/1994 : 1995 MPLJ 791) and a Division Bench at Gwalior consisting of Justice S. Dwivedi and Justice S.S. Jha in its judgment in L.P.A. 152/99 ( State of M.P. v. Asad Amin ) decided on 8-5-96 have taken a view that after omission of S.50(2) read with S.39(1)(d) of the Act power to release any seized vehicle for alleged commission of the offence under the Act no longer exists in any Court. One of us namely learned brother Dipak Misra, J., in his order of reference dated 23-3-98 to this Bench has raised serious doubt on the correctness of the single Bench decision of this Court in the case of respondent Sayed Yahya Ali (supra) and the Division Bench decision of Gwalior in the case of Asad Amin (supra). In taking the aforesaid view the Division Bench at Gwalior has also made reference and relied on the decision in Rajkumar Agarwal v. Superintendent of Police, Sarguja (MANU / MP / 0063/1974 : 1975 JLJ 159) and Laxmi Chandra v. State of M.P. (MANU / MP / 0403/199546).

3. For deciding the legal question, general scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions will have to be critically examined. As the preamble of the Act states the legislation has been brought for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto as there has been rapid decline of India's wild animals and forest growth. The Act underwent several amendments by Act No. 23 of 82, Act No. 44 of 91 and Act No. 26 of 93. The object and reasons for Amendment Act of 44/91 which with other amendments resulted in omission of Sub-section (2) of S.50 of the Act and introduction of Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) to S.39 deserve to be noticed and to which our attention was drawn on behalf of the State. The object and reasons read as under:--
"The penalties for various offences are proposed to be suitable enhanced to make them deterrent. The Central Government officers as well as individuals now can also file complaints in the Courts for offences under the Act. It is also proposed to provide for appointment of Honorary Wild Life Wardens and payment of rewards to persons helping in apprehension of offenders."

4. S.2 of the Act contains 'Definition clauses'. Sub-clause (14) defines 'Government property'. It means any property referred to in S.39 [or S.17H]. In Clause 33 of S.2 'vehicle' is defined, means any conveyance used for movement on land, water or air and includes buffalo, bull, bullock, camel, donkey, elephant, horse and mule. S.39, Sub-section (1) thereunder and Clauses (a) to (d) which are most relevant for deciding the legal question before us need full reproduction:--
"39. Wild animals, etc., to be Government property.-- (1) Every, (a) wild animal, other than vermin, which is hunted under S.11 of Sub-section (1) or S.29 or Sub-section (6) of S.35 or kept or bred in captivity or hunted i