Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ganeshsing Bisansing Bawari, filed a criminal application before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 2002. The Sessions Judge had set aside the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, which granted interim custody of the applicant's tractor (registration no. MH31/Z8363) and trolly (registration no. MH31/Z8397) to the applicant. The vehicle had been seized by Forest Officials on allegations that it was used for carrying flesh of wild pigs, constituting an offence under Sections 9 and 39 of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant moved an application (Ex. 19) before the Magistrate for interim custody, which was allowed on conditions including execution of a supratnama and indemnity bond of Rs. 3,00,000, and an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required and not to change its nature. The Magistrate considered that the tractor and trolly were required for agricultural purposes and that if detained in open space, they were likely to be affected by rain and sunlight. The Magistrate also considered the ruling in Kamlesh Jaduramji Yadao vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 198. The State of Maharashtra, through the Range Forest Officer, Ashti, opposed the application. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, found that the Sessions Judge had erred in setting aside the Magistrate's order without considering the purpose for which the vehicle was required and the condition of the vehicle. The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was legal and proper and that the Sessions Judge had no reason to interfere. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application, quashed the Sessions Judge's order, and restored the Magistrate's order granting interim custody on the same conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Property - Sections 9, 39 Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Vehicle seized for alleged offence of carrying wild pig flesh - Magistrate granted interim custody on conditions considering agricultural need and risk of deterioration - Sessions Judge set aside order - High Court held that Magistrate's order was legal and proper, and Sessions Judge erred in interfering without considering the purpose and condition of vehicle - Held that interim custody can be granted pending trial subject to suitable conditions (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class granting interim custody of the seized tractor and trolly to the applicant under the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, quashed the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, and restored the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, granting interim custody of the tractor and trolly to the applicant on the same conditions.
Law Points
- Interim custody of seized vehicle can be granted pending trial if vehicle is required for agricultural purpose and likely to deteriorate if kept in open
- Sections 9 and 39 of Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972 do not bar interim custody
- Magistrate's order granting custody was legal and proper
- Revisional Court erred in setting aside the order without considering the purpose and condition of vehicle
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (04) 88
Criminal Application No. 925 of 2008
Shri. R. M. Daga for the applicant, Shri. S. R. Deshpande, Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondent
Ganeshsing Bisansing Bawari
The State of Maharashtra through Range Forest Officer, Range Forest Office, Ashti, Tah. Ashti, Distt. Wardha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application for quashing order of Sessions Judge and restoring order of Magistrate granting interim custody of seized vehicle.
Remedy Sought
Applicant sought to quash and set aside the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, and to restore the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, granting interim custody of tractor and trolly.
Filing Reason
The vehicle of the applicant was seized by Forest Officials on allegations of being used for carrying flesh of wild pigs, and the applicant needed the vehicle for agricultural purposes.
Previous Decisions
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, by order dated 24.09.2002, granted interim custody of the tractor and trolly to the applicant on conditions. The Sessions Judge, Wardha, by order dated 09.10.2007, set aside that order in Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 2002.
Issues
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class granting interim custody of the seized vehicle.
Whether the Magistrate's order granting interim custody was legal and proper under the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that the vehicle was required for agricultural purposes and that if detained, it would deteriorate in open space.
Respondent opposed the grant of interim custody, citing provisions of the Forest Act and the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate's order granting interim custody of seized vehicle was legal and proper, considering the agricultural need of the applicant and the risk of deterioration if kept in open. The Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the order without considering these factors. Interim custody can be granted pending trial subject to suitable conditions.
Judgment Excerpts
By this application applicant prays to quash and set aside the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 2002 with further prayer to restore the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti below application Ex. 19 in Criminal Proceeding arising from Crime No. 193 of 2002 registered by Forest Officer under Sections 9 and 39 of The Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had considered that the tractor and trolly were required for agricultural purposes by the applicant and if they are detained by the forest officials during the pendency of the case, they will have to keep it in open space and were likely to be affected by rain and light.
In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge had no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was legal and proper.
Procedural History
The applicant's tractor and trolly were seized by Forest Officials in Crime No. 193 of 2002 under Sections 9 and 39 of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The applicant filed an application (Ex. 19) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, for interim custody, which was granted on 24.09.2002 on conditions. The State filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Wardha, who set aside the order on 09.10.2007. The applicant then filed the present criminal application before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, which was allowed on 13.04.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: 9, 39
- Indian Penal Code: 34
