G. RAJA Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.2.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham in C.M.P. No. 451 of 2012, by which, the application filed by him for return of vehicle under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the two wheeler-Hero Honda Splendor bearing Registration No. TN-23-AU 5491 and it was seized by the first respondent in connection with the case in W.L.O.R. No. 11 of 2009 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39, 51 and 54 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). Pursuant to such seizure, the offence was compounded and the petitioner also paid the compounding fee to the Gudiyatham Range. As per the first information report, the vehicle was shown as a case property and it was not produced before the concerned Court. On the contrary, the vehicle was seized by the first respondent and it was given to the custody of the second respondent. As the vehicle was seized as early as on 23.7.2009 and it is kept idle, exposed to sun, heat and rain, the petitioner filed the application in C.M.P. No. 451 of 2012 for release of the vehicle. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the vehicle itself was seized by the Government, therefore it is a government property and therefore, the vehicle could not be released. It was also pointed out by the Court below that the petitioner can always challenge the order of confiscation before the appropriate authority.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contend that when the competent authority under the Act has allowed him to compound the offence, there cannot be any seizure of the vehicle, which was involved in the commission of such offence. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Another v. J.K. Johnson and Others , for the proposition that when the accused was permitted to compound the offences under the Wild Life Protection Act, the officials had no power to order confiscation of the seized articles and they had to surrender the articles before the Magistrate, who shall deal with the manner of disposal of the seized articles.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that before confiscating the vehicle, a notice has to be issued and an enquiry has to be conducted, but without doing so, the respondents are not entitled to straight away pass an order of confiscation, confiscating the vehicle. In fact, under Section 51(3) and 54 of the Act, the vehicle has to be produced before the concerned Magistrate who shall deal with it in accordance with law. In any event, the Court below failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspects and therefore, he prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision Case.