Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent. The question of importance involved in this appeal relates to the ambit of Section 50(4) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short the Act). Connected issues relate to the scope for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code).
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One Hoshiyar Singh, the brother of the revisionist, Lalloo Singh was allegedly found carrying sand on a tractor trolley being dug and loaded from the bed of Jamuna river, within the sanctuary declared under Section 18 of the Act. The Forest Authorities intercepted the tractor trolley, arrested Hoshiyar Singh and seized the tractor trolley in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of the Act. A revision was filed by Lalloo Singh claiming to be the owner of the tractor trolley. He, therefore, moved an application for release of the same. The VIIth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 457 of the Code released the tractor trolley in favour of the revisionist on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs and two sureties in the like amount. Against that order, the State of UP. through District Forest Officer, Agra filed a Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1999 before the Sessions Judge, Agra which was heard and disposed of by Special Judge (E.C. Act). The revisional court being of the view that the tractor trolley seized under the Act, which has become the property of the Government, held that same could not be released by the Magistrate, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate. Hence, the revision by the revisionist, Lalloo Singh was filed as noted above.
(3.) The High Court by the impugned order held that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction.;