V. MURALI MOHAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, for issue of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not releasing seized car bearing No.TN 18 AF 6856 or producing before Magistrate as per procedure contemplated under Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (for short the Act), as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, consequently direct respondents to release car bearing No.TN 18 AF 6856.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of car bearing No.TN 18 AF 6856, Maruthi Alto bearing engine No.F8DN5604157 of 2016 model. While so, fourth respondent/Forest Range Officer, Nellore Range, SPSR Nellore District has registered a case in DOR No.4 of 2019-20 dtd. 17/8/2019 on the file of Forest Range Officer, SPSR Nellore District for the offence punishable under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 2(16), Sec. 39 (1)(d) punishable under Sec. 51 of the Act against one T. Guna Sekhar and V. Kumar alleging that on 17/8/2019 at about 9:00 a.m, upon reliable information from National Highways Authority, Forest Sec. Officer, Gudur along with his staff went to NH5 road near Pandluru village tank, observed that accused were standing near Maruthi Alto car bearing No.TN 18 AF 6856. On enquiry with accused, they voluntarily confessed that while they were travelling in the car from Chennai to Buchireddypalem for repairing paddy harvesting machine, on en-route suddenly two spotted deers came on NH5 road from the side of Pandluru village tank, hit the car, when they were driving, due to that two spotted deers fell died on both sides of car. Then Forest Sec. Officer, Gudur along with staff, on observing two deers as male deers, aged about two and three years old, conducted panchanama, produced before authorized officer and the dead bodies were burnt, by taking photos. In pursuance of registration of crime, Maruthi Alto car bearing No.TN 18 AF 6856, was seized and kept with fourth respondent/Forest Range Officer's office.

(3.) Seizure of vehicle, keeping the same with fourth respondent is contrary to procedure contemplated under the Act and according to the Act, competent authority has to forward the seized vehicle to Magistrate and on such surrender, Magistrate can proceed under Sec. 457 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C). But in the present case, respondents are not producing vehicle before Magistrate, contrary to procedure contemplated under Sec. 50 (4) of the Act. Therefore, inaction of respondents in not producing car before jurisdictional Magistrate or releasing vehicle on application of petitioner is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and Sec. 50 (4) of the Act, requested to issue direction.