Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)
Mohmmed Amzad Pasha vs State Of Telangana on 14 November, 2023 cites

State Of M.P. & Ors vs Madhukar Rao on 9 January, 2008

"23 This leaves the Court to deal with a judgment rendered in 2008 by a two judge Bench of this Court in State of MP v Madhukar Rao. The issue in that case was whether upon the seizure of a vehicle or vessel under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the Magistrate has no power to direct its release under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. during the pendency of a trial. Significantly, in that case the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 did not contain provisions analogous to the MP amendments to the Forest Act or for that matter those contained in the state laws noticed in Sudhakar Rao, Kunchindammed, Sujit Kumar Rana and Kallo Bai. Section 50 empowered the Director or the Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Officer, Authorised Officer or Police Officer, if they had reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence under the Act, to seize a captive or wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy etc. together with tools, vehicles, vessels or weapons used for the commission of the offence. Under sub section (2) of Section 50, prior to its amendment in October 1991 4, the Assistant Director or Wildlife Warden was empowered to release inter alia, a vehicle, vessel or weapon subject to a bond. This provision was deleted in 1991 and was substituted by a provision for handing over custody of a captive animal or wild animal which was seized, subject to the execution of a bond for production before a Magistrate of a competent jurisdiction. In view of the more limited power of release post amendment, it was urged that Section 50 provided a comprehensive scheme and it was not open to the Magistrate to direct interim release of a vehicle seized under Section 50. This submission was rejected by the Court, which held that Section 50 and other provisions in Chapter VI of the 3 Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2019 reported on 26.03.2019 4 "(2) Any officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant Director of Wild Life preservation of Wild Life Warden, who, or whose subordinate has seized any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon under clause (c) of subsection (1), may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 227 - A Alam - Full Document

Princl.Chief Conservator Of Forest & ... vs J.K.Johnson & Ors on 17 October, 2011

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Vs. J.K. Johnson and Ors. 2 agreed with the view of the Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Madhukar Rao(1 supra) that on the basis of seizure and mere accusations/allegations, Section 39(1)(d) of the Act of 1972 could not be allowed to operate and if it was done, it would be hit by the Constitutional provisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 88 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 Next