- (1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in revision no. 07/11 confirming the order dated 2.7.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 5, Jaipur District Jaipur. Brief facts of the case are that the Police has seized tractor no. RJ 14 RA 9643 along with trolly belonging to the petitioner which was carrying green trees. A case was registered under section 26 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and Sections 2, 27, 29, 31, 32 and 39 of Wild Life (Conservation) Act, 1972.
(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the learned trial court which has been dismissed by the order dated 2.7.2011 considering the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Syed Yahya Ali, 1995 MPLJ 791. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a revision petitioner and same has also been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 12.10.2011.
(3.) In view of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Madhukar Rao, 2008 14 SCC 624 specifically para no. 23 which is reproduced as under: Learned counsel submitted that Section 39(1)(d) of the Act made the articles seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Act as government property and, therefore, there was no question of their release. The submission was carefully considered by the Full bench of the High Court and on an examination of the various provisions of the Act it was held that the provision of Section 39(1)(d) would come into play only after a court of competent jurisdiction found the accusation and the allegations made against the accused as true and recorded the finding that the seized article was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence. Any attempt to operationalise Section 39(1)(d) of the Act merely on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations levelled by the departmental authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provisions and would render it unconstitutional and invalid. In our opinion, the High Court has taken a perfectly correct view and the provisions of Section 39(1)(d) cannot be used against exercise of the magistrate power to release the vehicle during pendency of the trial.;