THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.23932 OF 2025

ORDER

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 Others1 and Madhukar Rao and State of Madhya Pradesh²

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

1 (2011)10 SCC 794

(2008) 14 SCC 624

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 3 2000 (1) MPLJ 289 4 (2008) 14 SCC 624 5 (1973) 1 SCC 726 6 (2002) 2 SCC 318 7 (2005) 2 SCC 409 8 (2010) 4 SCC 653 9 (2010) 3 SCC 83 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. The Act, inter alia, seeks to regulate hunting of wild animals and birds; regulate possession, acquisition or tra