The three other cases were also disposed of following the Full Bench decision in Madhukars case.
The respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, moved the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur on May 12, 1997 for its release on Supurdnama.
The Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, was duly informed about the institution of the case on March 13, 1997.
The Sessions Judge by order, dated June 5, 1997 allowed the revision, relying upon a Bench decision of the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.P.A.No.152 of 1996.
After the revision was allowed and the order of release passed by the Magistrate was set aside, the Wild Life Warden and Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur passed an order on June 16, 1997 declaring the seized vehicle as Government property in terms of Section 39 d of the Act.
of antlers.
It was further stated that his neighbour Shri Lohiya, one of the accused in the case, had borrowed the vehicle on the pretext of going to see his ailing father.
In the revision, it was stated that the Magistrate had erred in allowing the release of the vehicle in disregard of Section 39 d of the Act in terms of which the seized vehicle became the property of the Government and hence, the companyrt had numberpower to release it on Supurdnama.
Here it is stated on behalf of the State that the S.L.P. filed against the order in the L.P.A. was dismissed by this Court in limine .
The four persons occupying the vehicle were arrested and the vehicle and the antlers were seized under Section 50 1 c of the Act.
Against the order of the Magistrate, the State Government filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Raipur.
The State is in appeal against the order passed by the High Court.
On behalf of the respondent it was stated that he was number an accused in the case and he had numberconcern with the companymission of any offences.
The vehicle was owned by Madhukar Rao, the respondent, but he was number in it at the time of checking.
It was further companytended that the power of release under Section 451 of the Code companyld be exercised only in respect of vehicles seized by a police officer.
W I T H A.Nos.5197, 5198, 5199, 5200 of 2001, SLP Nos.2095 and 8024 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2006 AFTAB ALAM,J. This judgment will dispose of the four appeals in all of which the same question arises for companysideration.
On March 12, 1997 at about 3.30 a.m., in companyrse of checking a Sub Inspector of Excise found a Tata Sumo vehicle, bearing Registration No.
The Magistrate allowed the petition and directed for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama by order, dated May 12, 1997.
MH.31 H/6919, carrying 206 kgs.
The facts of the case are taken from Civil Appeal No.5199 of 2001, the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madhukar Rao, which was the leading case before the High Court.
The case of the present respondent along with three other cases giving rise to the three other appeals in this batch was finally heard by a full bench.
The respondent then went to the High Court at Jabalpur, in Writ Petition No.4421 of 1997, challenging the decision of the Sessions Judge and seeking a direction for release of the vehicle on Supurdnama as ordered by the Magistrate.
The Excise Sub Inspector informed the officers of the Forest Department who registered a case being Offence No.6527/97 under Sections 39, 42, 43, 44, 49 Kha and 51 Kha of the Act.
Dharmadhikari,J. as His Lordship then was who authored the full bench judgment held and found that the Magistrates power to release a vehicle during the pendency of trial was number, in any way, affected by the legislative changes in the Act relied upon by the State and in appropriate cases it was fully open to the Magistrate to pass an order of interim release of a seized vehicle.
