1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.425 of 2011 Muthumariappan ... Petitioner Vs. State through Forest Officer, Srivilliputtur, W.L.O.R.No.1 of 2011. ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Srivilliputhur in Crl.M.P.No.2920 of 2011 dated 18.04.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R By consent, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. This revision is filed against the order dated 18.04.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.2920 of 2011 under which the prayer made by the revision petitioner for interim custody of the two wheeler i.e., Hero Honda Ambition bearing Registration No.TN-67 Q 1858 has been rejected. 3. Mr.G.Marimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the lower Court was under the mistaken impression that once the property is seized for the commission of the offence under Section 39 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, it will be automatically vested with the Government and such view taken by the trial Court is not correct and in support of his submission, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 730 in State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao. 4. Per contra, Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that since the vehicle in question has been repeatedly used for the commission of the offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, it has been rightly seized. 5. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the property is yet to be confiscated and therefore, appropriate orders may be passed for returning the said vehicle by way of interim custody. 6. The Court carefully considered the rival submission and also perused the typed set of documents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 730 in State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao., has considered the scope of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis Section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and held that the power of the Magistrate under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. has not been curtailed and he can exercise power for ordering return of the property by way of interim custody. 8. This Court taking into consideration the rival submissions and the above cited judgment, is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the order dated 18.04.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.2920 of 2011 is set aside and it is once again remanded to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur for fresh adjudication. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. 2. The Forest Officer, Srivilliputtur. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.G.Marimuthu, Advocate, SR No.19570 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.425 of 2011 22.06.2011 akv RJ/30.6.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/