Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present petition has been filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Assistant Wild Life Warden and Range Forest Officer, Ramtek, assailing before is the order dated 18-5-1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, on an application moved by the present respondent under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking release of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-31-G-6648 on Supratnama. A reference to the facts relating to the passing of this order is necessary.

2. Within Ramtek range under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Wild Life Warden, Ramtek, village Kachurwahi is situated. This village being in the interior part, is not easily accessible and bridge over the canal has to be crossed for reaching it. Electric Water Pumbs have been installed by the villagers for lifting water from the canal for irrigation.

3. In April, 1998 there were series of thefts of electric motor pump sets and the villagers had become alert and were maintaining a vigil. On the night of 19th April, 1998, the present respondent, who is original accused No. 3, and the other accused involved in the crime, had gone to the said village Kachurwahi in a Jeep bearing registration No. MH-31-G-6648. In the said motor vehicle the respondent and the other accused were in possession of one .22 rifle, one 375 magnum gun and one revolver. They had also in their possession live cartridges, knife, etc. The respondent and the other accused were moving stealthily in the agricultural fields and were successful in killing one black buck. They had switched on the searchlight and were trying to locate another black buck and this had alerted the villagers who were keeping a vigil for the thieves who had stolen electric motor pump sets. One of the villagers rushed to the village for giving information that the presence of thieves had been noticed in the agricultural fields. A posse of vigilante villagers went towards the agricultural field but the respondent and the other accused filed in their jeep. The other villagers obstructed the passage of the jeep and the respondent and other accused, therefore, could not proceed further. The villagers found arms and ammunitions referred to above in the jeep and they also noticed a carcass of the black buck. The original co-accused along with the present respondent were given in the custody of the Police Patil who had enquired from them regarding their presence. The carcass of the black buck was taken out from the jeep and was kept in the courtyard of the Police Patil and after verification of the names of the respondent and the other accused, information was given on telephone to the Ramtek Police Station. The police came to the house of the Police Patil, arrested the respondent and the other accused, seized the jeep, the weapons and the carcass of the black buck. Offence was registered against the present respondent and the other accused punishable under Sections 9 and 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as well as under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act and under Sections 3, 4/25 of the Arms Act vide Crime No. 3037/98.

4. The other steps taken by the Investigating Officer while investigating the said offences are not germane for deciding the present controversy and, therefore, we make no reference to those facts. Suffice it to say that present respondent, who owns the said vehicle i.e. the Mahindra Commander Jeep bearing Registration No. MH-31-G-6648 and who was at the relevant time employed as an Executive Engineer in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, filed an application dated 14th May, 1998 before the learned J.M.F.C., Ramtek seeking release of the said vehicle on Supratnama. The learned Magistrate called for the report from the Ramtek Police and curiously no report or say was called from the authorities under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wild Life Protection Act' for the sake of brevity). Be that as it may, the learned Magistrate, by his order dated 18-5-1998, directed the release of the said vehicle to the respondent on the respondent executing a bond of Rs. Six Lacs and on the condition that the respondent does not change or alienate the said vehicle till the disposal of the trial. The learned Magistrate, while allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 457, appears to have been greatly influenced by the fact that under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act a procedure is prescribed for confiscation of the vehicle involved in an offence under the Forest Act. The judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent before the learned Magistrate seems to have weighed heavily with him in allowing the application filed by the respondent. What was contended before the learned Magistrate was that, as per decision of this Court reported in Kamlesh v. State of Maharashtra 1997 Cri LJ 1399 a single Judge of this Court had taken a view that if the seizure of the property involved in the commission of the forest offence was not reported to the Authorised Officer, then the Criminal Court had the jurisdiction to order the release of the property of the vehicle involved in the offence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate observed that since no process of forfeiture had been initiated, the Magistrate felt that he had the necessary jurisdiction to release the said jeep pending conclusion of the trial.

12. At this stage Mr. Nawab, appearing for the respondents, submits that he would hand over the custody of the jeep and would produce it before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, within a week from today we agree to grant him time as we appreciate the gesture of the learned Counsel for the respondent, though made to obviate the implementation of coercive method of seizure of the motor vehicle i.e. the jeep involved in the offence.

13. We have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing the present writ petit ion filed by the petitioner. We allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18-5-1998 and direct the respondent to deliver possession of the jeep by surrendering the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, after giving notice to the petitioner within one week from today. We further direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek to deliver possession and custody of the jeep to the petitioner, who shall be entitled to its custody till the conclusion of the trial. Needless to say that the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate order regarding the disposal of the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the trial keeping in mind the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Wild Life (Protection) Act. In the event the respondent does not surrender the vehicle within a week from today, the learned Magistrate would be at liberty to take such steps in accordance with law for seizure of the said jeep.