VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that applicant's son Deepak was apprehended by Forest Officials on 23.08.2012 in the restricted zone of Forest. He was on a motorcycle bearing registration no. UK 08 Y 2079 and a piece of elephant tusk was recovered from him, besides one Nokia mobile.
(2.) The Magistrate has refused to release the motorcycle. Deepak Kumar has neither confessed his guilt nor the same has been compounded on the ground of suspicion, so he will face trial before the court below. During the pendency of trial, nothing prevented the Magistrate concerned to exercise his powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
(3.) Section 39 (1) (d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for brevity the "Act") envisages that the seized property to be of Government when the offence of hunting is proved, until and unless the offence is proved either on the basis of trial or confession, the article, as adumbrated in Section 39 (1) (d) of the Act, can be released by the Magistrate excluding the property of State Government like hunted animal or any part thereof.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.