Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed before the High Court of Karnataka seeking to set aside orders of the lower courts which had rejected the petitioner's application for interim custody of a vehicle. The petitioner, Syed Abdul Khadir, was the registered owner of a Chevrolet Tavera motorcar bearing registration number KA-32-M-7461. On 1 February 2019, during night patrolling, the police noticed the car coming from Mirkal village towards Belur village and attempted to stop it for checking. The occupants, upon seeing the uniformed police, tried to flee but abandoned the vehicle and ran away. Upon inspection, the police found a dead deer with bullet injury, a severed deer head, cut deer meat in two bags, 23 empty cartridges of .22 rifle, 60 live bullets of .22 rifle, and an Indian arms licence. A complaint was lodged and the vehicle was seized. A crime was registered under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 307, 353 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner, claiming ownership, filed an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle. The magistrate dismissed the application on 29 April 2019, holding that under Section 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life Act, the vehicle had become government property. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, on 1 July 2019. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The main legal issue was whether the vehicle seized under the Wild Life Act automatically vests in the government under Section 39(1)(d) before trial, thereby disentitling the magistrate to release it pending trial. The petitioner argued that unless it is proved that the vehicle was involved in the crime, the State cannot retain it as its property, relying on a coordinate bench decision in Annappa v. The State Through the Range Forest Officer. The respondent-State contended that Section 39(1)(d) clearly states that a vehicle used for committing an offence and seized under the Act becomes government property. The High Court examined Section 39(1)(d) and noted that it requires proof that the vehicle was used in committing an offence. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624, and Principle Chief Conservator of Forest v. J.K. Johnson, Civil Appeal No. 2534/2011, as well as the Karnataka High Court's decision in Annappa, the court held that Section 39(1)(d) operates only after a competent court records a finding of guilt and that the article was used in commission of the offence. Since the trial had not yet commenced, the vehicle had not become government property, and the magistrate had jurisdiction to release it under Section 457/451 Cr.P.C. The High Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner on stringent conditions, including execution of personal bond and bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs each, prohibition on altering the vehicle, and an undertaking to produce it when required.
Headnote
A) Wildlife Protection - Seizure of Vehicle - Interim Release Pending Trial - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 39(1)(d); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 457, 451 - The petitioner sought release of a vehicle seized in connection with an alleged offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The lower courts rejected the application holding that under Section 39(1)(d), the vehicle becomes government property upon seizure. The High Court held that Section 39(1)(d) would come into play only after a competent court finds the accused guilty and records a finding that the seized article was used in the commission of an offence. Pending trial, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to release the vehicle under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. subject to conditions. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in rejecting the application for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the vehicle is government property under Section 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, pending trial.
Final Decision
Criminal Petition allowed; orders of lower courts set aside; application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. partly allowed; vehicle to be released to petitioner on conditions including personal bond of Rs.5 lakhs with two sureties, irrevocable bank guarantee of Rs.5 lakhs, no change in vehicle, production when required, etc.
Law Points
- Section 39(1)(d) of Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- applies only after conviction
- vehicle not automatically Government property before trial
- Magistrate has jurisdiction to release vehicle under Section 457/451 CrPC pending trial on conditions
