THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28510 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the vehicle Tata Indica bearing Registration No.AP-25 N 0619 belonging to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is the owner of the aforementioned vehicle. While the petitioner was travelling in the said vehicle, respondent No.2 found Sand Boa Snakes Family Boidae and seized the said snakes. On the basis of the report, dated 29.12.2009, given by the Forest Range Officer, Nirmal and as recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No.1 ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation. The petitioner paid Rs.25,000/- on the same day, but the respondents have not released the said vehicle. The respondents ought to have followed the section of law in which Form E was issued and followed on payment of any such compensation, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged, and the property, other than the Government Property, if any seized, shall be released and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person. Challenging the impugned proceedings, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.22587 of 2010, wherein the petitioner’s vehicle No.AP 25 N 0619 was not included in the said writ petition inadvertently and the same was allowed on 22.09.2011 directing the respondents to release the vehicle within one month from the date of that order. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that respondent No.2 compounded the case for Rs.25,000/- on 29.12.2009 and ordered that on payment of compensation, the suspected persons, who are in the custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such persons. The seizures i.e., two Sand Boa Snakes Family Boidae (locally called as two headed snakes), Maruthi ALTO Car No.AP 09 BH 7149 and Tata Indica Car No.AP 25 N 0619, and weighing machine booked under Section 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’) are the property of the Government. On 28.12.2009, at 9.30 p.m., during the vehicle checking, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kubeer seized two cars along with six accused persons in possession of the said snakes and handed over the same to the Forest Department for further action. The accused persons could not show any valid documents connected to snakes and accepted that they are transporting the above snakes illegally. A wild life offence case has been registered vide POR No.15/189, dated 29.12.2009, by Forest Section Officer, Kubeer against D.Pattabi Ramaiah and five others. The power of releasing the vehicle has been expressly removed by omitting sub Section (2) of Section 50 of the Act to ensure that the vehicle which has been seized should not be returned to the accused. The petitioners have to apply to the concerned Magistrate for return of the seized items as per Section 50(4) of the Act, as held by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2534 of 2011, dated 17.10.2011. The accused persons in their statements confessed about their offence and stated that they were transporting the Sand Boa snakes illegally from Nizamabad to Maharashtra and settled a deal for Rs.12.00 lakhs towards cost of the snakes and they have used modern and costly vehicles in this offence to avoid suspicion. The Sand Boa Snake is part of the food chain and there is need for its protection by taking deterrent measures against the offenders in order to provide protection to the wild life with a view to ensure ecological and environmental security of the country and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The only contention raised in this writ petition is whether this Court has got jurisdiction to order return of the vehicle in question upon registration of the crime by the police officials. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the Divisional Forest Official, Nirmal registered a case vide POR No.15/189, dated 29.12.2009, and the same has not been referred to the concerned Magistrate and hence, he prays to issue a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle in question. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents contended that in view of the judgment, dated 17.10.2011, of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2534 of 2011, the petitioner has to approach the concerned Magistrate for release of the vehicle, which was seized under the Act. 7. It is not in dispute before this Court that a preliminary forest offence report is lodged by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nirmal whereunder two vehicles were seized by the forest officials for contravention of certain forest laws. It is not known whether that report has been forwarded to the concerned Magistrate or not under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The concerned Magistrate will get jurisdiction to order for interim custody of the vehicle if the vehicle is produced before him. Even if the vehicle is not produced before the concerned Magistrate, when the seizure is reported, the Magistrate will get jurisdiction to pass interim orders under Section 457 Cr.P.C. In this case, the respondents did not file any document to show that the concerned POR report registered by the Divisional Forest Officer was forwarded to the concerned Magistrate or about reporting of the seizure of the two vehicles to the concerned Magistrate. So, in the absence of any proceedings pending before the concerned Magistrate, only the forest officials have to pass the necessary orders for return of the vehicle in question. Admittedly, no confiscation order was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer confiscating the vehicle to the State. If the vehicle is kept idle exposed to sun and rain, it would cause damage to it. Since no F.I.R., as contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C., is forwarded to the Magistrate, the Magistrate will not get jurisdiction to pass any orders. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed directing respondent No.1 to release the vehicle in question on payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), which shall be subject to the decision that may be taken by the Divisional Forest Officer on condition that the petitioner shall not sell, alienate or transfer the vehicle to third parties or change the colour of the vehicle and he is also directed to produce the vehicle, as and when required by respondent No.1. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 26th December, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28510 OF 2011 Date:26.12.2011 AMD