Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sarika Nitin Salunkhe, is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. MH-09-EM-8479. On 26th October 2020, Forest Authorities intercepted the truck and found it carrying bauxite allegedly mined in a sanctuary area without a permit. Offences were registered under Sections 27, 29, 50 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Crime No. 02/2020). The Forest Officer seized the vehicle under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act. Subsequently, offences under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were also added. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The forest authorities opposed the application, contending that under Section 61G of the Indian Forest Act, only the authorized officer under Section 61A or officers specially empowered under Section 61C or the Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under Section 61D have jurisdiction over the custody of seized property, and thus the Magistrate had no jurisdiction. The Magistrate rejected the application, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed the issue: whether a vehicle seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act can be released by the Magistrate pending trial under Section 50(4) of that Act read with Section 451 CrPC. The court analyzed Section 50(4) of the Wildlife Protection Act, which states that the provisions of the CrPC shall apply to all proceedings under the Act. The court held that there is no bar in the Wildlife Protection Act preventing the Magistrate from releasing seized property under Section 451 CrPC. The court distinguished the Indian Forest Act provisions, noting that they apply only when seizure is under that Act, not under the Wildlife Protection Act. The court allowed the petition, set aside the Magistrate's order, and directed the Magistrate to consider the petitioner's application for interim custody of the vehicle on its own merits, in accordance with law, and preferably within two weeks.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Section 50(4) read with Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451 - The court held that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 451 CrPC for release of a vehicle seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 pending trial, as Section 50(4) of the Wildlife Protection Act does not exclude the application of the CrPC. The provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Sections 61A, 61C, 61D, 61G) do not oust the Magistrate's power under Section 451 CrPC when the seizure is under the Wildlife Protection Act. (Paras 2, 5-8) B) Wildlife Protection - Seizure and Release of Property - Section 50(4) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 - The court interpreted Section 50(4) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, which states that the provisions of the CrPC shall apply to all proceedings under the Act, and held that the Magistrate can release seized property under Section 451 CrPC pending trial, as there is no bar in the Act. (Paras 5-8) C) Forest Law - Jurisdiction over Seized Property - Indian Forest Act, 1927, Sections 61A, 61C, 61D, 61G - The court held that the special provisions under the Indian Forest Act regarding custody of seized property (Sections 61A, 61C, 61D, 61G) apply only when the seizure is under the Indian Forest Act, and not when the seizure is under the Wildlife Protection Act. Therefore, the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC is not ousted. (Paras 4, 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether any property including vehicle seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on accusation or suspicion of commission of offence under the Act of 1972 can be released by the Magistrate pending trial in accordance with Section 50(4) of the Act of 1972 read with Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Magistrate, and directed the Magistrate to consider the petitioner's application for interim custody of the vehicle on its own merits, in accordance with law, and preferably within two weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC to release seized property pending trial
- interplay between Wildlife Protection Act and Indian Forest Act
- Section 50(4) of Wildlife Protection Act does not bar application of CrPC
- Section 61G of Indian Forest Act does not oust Magistrate's power under CrPC.
