IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3098 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CRMP.4562/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II (FOREST OFFENCES), PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: SASI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, AIKKANALIL VEEDU, KARIKODE, MULAMKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ANJAL RANGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3098 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Scorpio Jeep KL-05/U 4822 was seized by Forest officials in O.R.No.12/2009 of Anchal Forest Range, registered for the offences under Sections 39 and 50 of Wild Life Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner of the vehicle, filed Crl.M.P.No.4562/2009 before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II (Forest Offences), Punalur for release of the vehicle under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Annexure-A6 order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that under Section 39(1)(d) of the Act, the vehicle that has been used for committing an offence is liable to be seized under the provisions of the Act and if so, it cannot be granted on interim custody and it can be released only after completion of the trial. CRMC 3098/09 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The question whether Wild Life Protection Act is a complete code itself and thereby exclude the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to grant interim custody under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure is settled by the decision of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao (2008 (2) KLT 105). It was held that to contend that use of a vehicle in the commission of an offence under the Act, without anything else, would bar its jurisdiction to grant interim release is unreasonable as there may be a case where a vehicle was undeniably used for commission of an offence under the Act, but, the owner of the vehicle is in a position to show that it was used for committing the offence, only after it was stolen from his possession and in that situation and in such a case, it cannot be said that the vehicle cannot be released to the owner during the pendency of the CRMC 3098/09 3 trial. It was also held that in view of deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act, an aggrieved person has no option, but to approach the Magistrate directly for interim release of the seized vehicle. 4. In such circumstances, dismissal of the petition for the reason that Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant interim custody is unsustainable. Hence, Annexure-A6 order is quashed. Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Forest Offences), Punalur is directed to reconsider Crl.M.P.No.4562/2009 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Petition is disposed. 12th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv