ABDUL SAMAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT.P1, order dated January 28, 2011 in O.R.No.24 of 2010 of Forest Range Office, Kasaragod refusing to release the vehicle by way of interim custody to the petitioner is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) O.R.No.24 of 2010 is registered against the accused therein for offences punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Forest Act") read with Sections 2, 9, 39 and 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act (for short, "the Act") for alleged trespass into the reserve forest and hunting an Indian Bison. When the carcass was being carried in the vehicle involved, forest officials seized the same. The vehicle was produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. Petitioner who is the brother of one of the accused in O.R.No.24 of 2010 claiming to the registered owner of the vehicle filed C.M.P.No.150 of 2011 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate requesting that interim custody of the vehicle be released to him. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the request and by Ext.P1, order rejected it. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that the offences alleged are serious in nature, the object of the Act is to preserve and protect the wild life and a liberal approach in such matters is unwarranted, for the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that even the amended provisions of Sections 39 and 50 of the Act do not take away power of the criminal court to release the vehicle by way of interim custody and if the vehicle is kept idle it will get damaged and lost which is not advantageous to either the petitioner or the State Government. In such circumstances it is within the power of the court to order release of the vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition contending that serious offences are involved and that apart from the case registered by the Range Office, the Police also has registered a case against the accused for offences under the Indian Arms Act. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in matters of this nature a strict view is to be taken.

(3.) SINCE possibility of the vehicle getting damaged and rendered useless when kept idle cannot be ruled out I am inclined to allow the request of petitioner but on stringent conditions so that vehicle is made available as and when required by the court or other appropriate authority and use of the vehicle for similar purposes is excluded. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: A. Ext.P1, order is set aside and C.M.P.No.150 of 2011 (in O.R.No.24 of 2010 of Forest Range Office, Kasaragod) is allowed. B. The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner subject to his complying with the following conditions: