MATHEW Vs. RANGE OFFICER CHEDELATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the registered owner of Maruthi 1000 car which was taken into custody by the Forest Officers in connection with O. R. 12/2002 of Chedelath Forest Range. An application filed by the petitioner for getting interim custody of the vehicle was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Sulthan Bathery. This petition is filed challenging the order by which the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) In the order, it is said that the Forest Range Officer objected giving vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody. The objection which was raised before the Magistrate was that the vehicle seized by the Forest Officers had become property of the Government and hence it should not be released to the petitioner. Learned Magistrate accepted the above objection raised by the Forest Range Officer.

(3.) Objection raised by the Forest Range Officer was on the basis of what is said in Section 39(l)(d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The above provision says that vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act shall be the property of the Central Government. Provision does not say that any property seized alleging commission of the offence will become the property of the Central Government. On the other hand, it is clear on a reading of the Section that a vehicle that has been used for committing an offence will become the property of the Central Government. That means only if it is established that an offence had been committed under the provisions of the Act, the vehicle will become that of the Central Government.