( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 147 OF 2010 Dineshbhai Micharabhai Gamit .. Petitioner Versus The Forest Officer and ors. .. Respondents Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 26.02.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.V. Gangapurwala for the petitioner. A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale waives notice for respondent No.1. 2. It is case of the petitioner that he is owner of vehicle No. GJ-19-M-3229, which was seized in Forest Crime No. 2 of 2009, registered with Forest Officer, Parola. The application for release of vehicle was given under section ( 2 ) 457 of the Cr.P.C. to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner. Said application was rejected by order dated 07.12.2009, on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction. The Magistrate also referred to Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. As against said order, Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2009 was filed and same came to be dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, by order dated 22.12.2009. 3. Both Courts have relied upon Section 39 (1) (d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which is as follows :- “39. Wild animals, etc., to be Government property – (1) Every - x x x x x (d) vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this Act, shall be the property of the State Government, and, where such animal is hunted in a sanctuary or National Park declared by the Central Government such animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal or any vehicle, vessel weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting shall be the property of the Central Government. x x x x x ” ( 3 ) 4. Reliance was also placed on the case of State of M.P. & others V/s. Madhukar Rao, 2008 AIR SCW 787. Moreover, Section 61-G of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as per Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1985, is as follows :- “61-G. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases – Whenever any forest produce belonging to the Government together with any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle, cart, cattle or any other contrivance used in committing any offence is seized under sub-section (1) of section 52, the authorised officer under section 61-A or the officer specially empowered under section 61-C or the Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under section 61-D have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force, any other officer, Court, tribunal or authority shall not have jurisdiction to make an order with regard to the custody, possession, delivery or distribution of such property. “ 5. Under section 2 (4) “forest produce” is defined as follows:- “2 (4) “forest produce” includes - (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not that is to say, - timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth and myrabolams, and ( 4 ) (b) the following when found, in, or brought from, a forest that is to say, - (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce, not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees, (ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants, (iii) wild animal and skins, tusks, borns, bones, silk cocoons, honey, and wax, and all other parts of produce of animals, and (iv) peat, surface soil, rock, and minerals (including limestone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries);” 6. So, above said provision would show that so far as Maharashtra is concerned, the jurisdiction shall vests in the authority indicated in Section 61 (G) and provisions of Section 61 (G) of the Indian Forest Act, would be applicable. 7. For all above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. 8. At this stage Adv. Shri Gangapurwala for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be given liberty to move the authority mentioned in section 61 (G) of the Indian ( 5 ) Forest Act. The petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned authority and the concerned authority may consider the application on merit. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/FEB10/crwp147.10