THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :296 of 2010 DATED: 21-01-2010 Between: K.Sathiyamoorthy. ..... PETITIONER And The Chief Conservator of Forest, Wild Life Management Circle, Tirupathi & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioner is the owner of the two wheeler Hero Honda (Splender Plus) bearing No.TN 23 AE 6829 and the said vehicle was seized by the Forest officials on the ground that the petitioner’s friend, who was riding the said vehicle on the relevant point of time, committed the offences under Sections 9 and 49A of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) and Sections 289, 379 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As the petitioner has nothing to do with the said crime and as he is in need of the said vehicle he filed an application before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chitooor on 16-11-2009 seeking interim stay of the vehicle as provided for under Section 451 Cr.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate by his proceedings, dated 20- 11-2009, returned the said petition stating that no such property was produced before the Court. Thereafter, petitioner approached the 3rd respondent-Divisional Forest Officer and filed an application on 25-11- 2009 requesting him to release the vehicle in his favour. However, the 3rd respondent refused to release the said vehicle and accordingly passed an order on 30-11-2009. The same is questioned in this Writ Petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 4th respondent. 4. In my considered view, the proceedings, dated 30-11-2009, passed by the 3rd respondent refusing to release the vehicle and also to produce the same before the competent criminal Court is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. No doubt, the vehicle was seized in connection with an offence falling under the Act but so long as the proceedings are pending, it cannot be said that it has become the property of the Government. Ultimately, after conclusion of the proceedings the competent authority may hold either way i.e., the accused is guilty or not. Any way, that is a matter which does not require any importance for the reason that as and when any vehicle is seized in connection with a crime, the officials concerned are duty bound to produce the same before a competent criminal Court. Hence, the 3rd respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor is hereby directed to produce the said vehicle before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ T.GOPALAKRISHNA,J 21st January, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within two days. B/o Tsy