0907cwp257.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 257 OF 2010 (Bandu Kawadu Chapade Vs. State of Maharashtra through Conservator of Forest) ........................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. V. Gedam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.P. Badar, Advocate for the respondent. ....... CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : 09TH JULY, 2010 The petitioner is raising exception to the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below in respect of return of property during the pendency of the proceedings. The vehicle in question used for transporting the remains of wild animal have been seized by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It is brought to the notice of the officials of the forest department that wild animal noted in Schedule 3 Item 5 of the Wild Life Protection Act has been killed. On making enquiry and on recording confessional statement of Laxman Zunga Gawahare, it was revealed that the meat & remains of the wild animal were transported in a vehicle belonging to the petitioner herein. The vehicle was therefore seized as the same was used for transporting the flesh & remains of the wild animal. It also transpires from the record that the statement of the petitioner has been recorded by the Assistant Wild Life Warden & Assistant Conservator of Forest, Chandrapur wherein the petitioner has admitted to have transported the meat of the wild animal in his vehicle. The petitioner herein presented an application seeking 0907cwp257.10.odt 2/2 release of the vehicle to the Magistrate. It is contended that the provisions of Section 52 of the Indian Forests Act contemplates seizure of vehicle together with the forest produce, however, in the instant matter, the offence of killing forest animal and transportation of flesh of the animal in the vehicle in question was committed earlier to the date of the seizure and as such, according to the Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, cannot be attracted. It is contended by the Counsel appearing for the respondent that the offence is registered under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act and the action of seizure of the vehicle is taken under Section 50 the said Act. Apart from this, under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act, carrying of wild animals and its remain or body part in the vehicle is itself an offence. In the instant matter, on perusal of the original record, it appears that there is violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act which is punishable under Section 51 of the Act. It is also evident from the record that wild animal was shot down on an earlier date and its meat and body parts were transported in a vehicle belonging to the petitioner. Merely because the vehicle is seized on a subsequent date, will not render the action of seizure illegal. No interference is called for in the petition. The criminal writ petition stands rejected summarily. JUDGE wwl