Holding

Section 457 CrPC does not apply to seizures by wildlife officials; the magistrate may order custody or temporary release of seized property under Section 50(4) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and Section 451 CrPC, subject to the condition that the property becomes Government property only when it is shown to have been used for the offence.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that allowed Lalloo Singh to retain a tractor trolley seized by forest officials under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The seizure occurred because the trolley was used to load sand from the Yamuna river bed inside a sanctuary. The trial magistrate had released the trolley under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, upon the appellant furnishing a bond. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 457 applies to officials under the Wildlife Act, the effect of the deletion of Section 50(2), and the scope of the magistrate's power under Section 50(4) and Section 451 of the CrPC. It held that Section 457 does not apply to wildlife officials, but the magistrate may order custody or temporary release of seized property under Section 50(4) and Section 451, keeping in mind that the property becomes Government property only when it is shown to have been used for an offence. The appeal was dismissed and the legal issues were clarified.

Issues considered

Whether Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to seizures made by officials under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Whether the magistrate has jurisdiction to release or order custody of property seized under Section 50 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act after the omission of sub‑section (2).
Effect of the deletion of sub‑section (2) of Section 50 on the power of the magistrate to direct release of seized articles.
Whether seized property automatically becomes the property of the Government under Section 39(d) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act without proof of its use in the offence.
Whether Section 451 of the CrPC can be invoked for custody, sale or disposal of seized property pending trial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 451, s. 457
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972s. 39(d), s. 50(1), s. 50(2), s. 50(3), s. 50(3A), s. 50(4)

Subjects

wildlife protectionseizure of propertymagistrate jurisdictionCrPC 457CrPC 451Section 50Section 39environmental lawgovernment property

Judgment

A STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
v.
LALLOO SINGH

JULY 20, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:

ss.50(4), 39(J)(d)-Seizure by forest authorities of tractor trolley
C carrying sand dug from lhe bed of Yamuna river-Power of Magistrate to
release the tractor-Held: Magistrate can pass appropriate orders in respect
of seized property-He is required to take into account the statutory mandate
that seized property becomes property of Government when the same was
used for commission of an offence under the Act-While dealing with
D application for release of seized property, there cannot be complete
adjudication of issues involved as the same is matter for trial.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s.457--Seizure of tractor trolley by Forest Officer under 1972 Act-
E Magistrate releasing tractor by exercising power conferred under s.457-
. applicability of s.457 challenged-Held: s.457 not applicable, as officials
under the Act are not police officials-s.457 applicable only when a police
officer produces the said property before Magistrate-Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972-ss.39(/)(d), 50(4).

F The brother of the revisionfst was allegedly found carrying sand on a
tractor trolley being dug and loaded from the bed ofYamuna River within the
sanctuary declared under s.18 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The
forest authorities seized the tractor trolley. Revisionist moved an application
for release of the tractor trolley. The Magistrate in exercise of powers
G conferred under s. 457 Cr.P.C. released a tractor trolley in favour of the
revisionist on his furnishing pers9nal bond of Rs.2 lacs. Against that order,
the State filed revision before the Sessions Judge. The revisional Court
allowed the revision holding that the tractor trolley seized under the Act, has
become the property of the Government and hence could not be released by

H 420
I.
STATEOFU.P. v. LALLOOSINGH 421

'• the Magistrate. The High Court by the impugned order held that the A
-4-
Magistrate had the jurisdiction.

In appeal to this Court, State contended that the effect of deletion of
sub-section (2) of s.50 of the Act has not been considered by the High Court;
that High Court also lost sight of the fact that the moment there is seizure of
the seized property it becomes the property of the Government in terms of B
s.39 of the Act; and that s. 457 Cr.P.C. has no application because it is
applicable only when a police officer produces the said property before the
... Magistrate and the officials under the Act are not police officials.
-\
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
c
HELD: I. S.457 Cr.P.C. applies when the seizure of property by a police
officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code. There is
a marked distinction between police officers and the officials under the Wild
Life (Protection) Act as is evident from sub-section (1) of s.50. Thus, in view
of the clear language of sub-section (1) of s.50, s.457 Cr.P.C. has no
D
application. But there is another provision which also is relevant i.e. s.451
-I
.._' Cr.P.C. that relates to the order for custody and disposal of the property
pending trial in certain cases. It provides that when any property is produced
before any criminal Court, during any enquiry or trial, the Court may make
such order as it thinks fit for proper custody of such property pending the
conclusion of the enquiry or the trial. It also provides for action to be taken E,
when the property is subject to speedy and natural decay. If the Court otherwise
thinks it expedient to do so, the Court may after recording such evidence as
it thinks fit may pass orders for sale of the property or disposal thereof.
[Paras 8 and 10] (424-C, D; 427-B-CJ

2. Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of s.39 deals with a situation when any F
,)<'
vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool has been used for committing an offence
and has been seized under the provisions of the Act. The twin conditions are
that the vehicle etc. must have been used for committing an offence and has
been seized. Mere seizure of the property without any material to show that
the same has been used for committing an offence does not make the seized G
property, the property of the Government. Under sub-section (1) ofs. 50 action
can be taken if the concerned official has reasonable grounds for believing
that any person has committed an offence under the Act. When any person is
~
-1 detained, or things seized are taken before the Magistrate, he has the power
to deal with the same "in accordance with law". There is a significant addition
in sub-section (4) by Act 16 of2003 i.e. requirement of intimation to the Chief H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.
.;.
A Wild Life Wardon or the officer authorized in this regard as to the action to +
be taken by the Magistrate when the seized property is taken before a t
Magistrate. A combined reading of the omitted sub-section (2) and the
substituted sub-section (3A) of s.50 makes the position clear that prior to the
omission, the officials under the Act had the power to direct release of the
seized article. Under sub-section (I), the power for giving temporary custody
B subject to the condition that the same shall be produced if and when required
by the Magistrate is indicative of the fact that the Magistrate can pass
appropriate orders in respect of the purported seized property. which is taken ff"
)-
before him. While dealing with an application for temporary release of custody,
there cannot be a complete adjudication of the issues involved as the same is
c a matter for trial. While dealing with the application the Magistrate has to
take into account the statutory mandate that the seized property becomes the
property of the State Government when the same has been used for commission
of an offence under the Act and has been seized. It appears. that insertiol" in
sub-section (4) relating to the intimation to the Chief Wild Life officer or the
officer authorized by him is intended to give concerned official an opportunity
D of placing relevant materials on record, before the Magistrate passes any ....
order, relating to release or custody. In appropriate cases on consideration ~-
of materials placed before him, prayer for such release or custody can be
rejected. (Para 13) (427-E-H; 428-A-D)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 963 of
E
2001.

From the Judgment & Order dated 13.10.1999 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Cr!. Revision No. 1144 of 1999.

Ashok Bhan, (A.C.) Rama Devi, M.C. Dhingra, Sanjay Kumar Singh,
F
Fuzail Khan and Anuvrat Sharma for the Appellants. .:>l_ •

Shakeel Ahmed and Arna Das for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. l. 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, r
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
H
STATEOFU.P. v. LALLOOSINGH[PASAYAT,J.J 423
,..
"""-
short the 'Code'). A
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
One Hoshiyar Singh, the brother of the revisionist, Lalloo Singh was
allegedly found cal'l')'ing sand on a tractor trolley being dug and loaded from
the bed of Jamuna river, within the sanctuary declared under Section 18 of B
the Act. The Fore$t 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 Vllth Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of
the powers conferred under Section 457 of the Code released the tractor c
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.85of1999
before the Sessions Judge, Agra which was heard and disposed of by Special
Judge (E.C. Act). The revlsional court being of the view that the tractor trolley D
_._ seized under the Act, which has become the property of the Oovernment, 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 tiled as noted above.
3. The High Court by the impugned order held that the Magistrate had li
the jurisdiction.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the effect of deletion of sub-section (2) of Section SO of the Act has not
been considered by the High Court. It also lost sight of the fact that the
)c:_ moment there is seizure of the seized property It becomes the property of the F
Oovemment in tenns of Section 39 of the Act. Section 4S7 of the Code has
no application because it relates to only when a police officer produces the
said property before the magistrate. The officials under the Act are not police
officials.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
G
the interpretation given by the High Court to Section SO of the Act is correct.
Sub section (2) of Section 50 has no effect on the power of the Magistrate
-i
to release the seized articles. For appli91tion of Section 39 of the Act there
has to be first determination that the seized property in question was used
for the purpose of commission of an offence. H
.1

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R.
-!
-f.-
A 6. Considering the fact that there is diversion of views of various High
Courts, we requested Mr. Ashok Bhan to act as Amicus Curiae.

7. We have heard at length learned counsel for the parties. It is to be
noted that substantial changes have been made in the Act by the Act 44 of
1991 operating with effect from 2.10.1991. The major changes so far as the
~
B present case is concerned relate to deletion of sub-section (2) of Section SO,
insertion of clauses (c) & (d) in sub-section (I) of Section 39, insertion of sub·
section 3(a) in Section SO.
..
}

8. While dealing with the first question, what needs consideration is
whether Section 457 of the Code has any application to the present case.
c Undisputedly, Section 457 of the Code applies when the seizure of property
by a police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of the
Code. There is a marked distinction between police officers and the officials
under the Act as is evident from sub-section (l) of Section SO. The said
Section so far as relevant reads as follows:·
D "SO. Power of enrry, search, arrest and detention.·( I) Notwithstanding ~
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the
Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf or the
Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any forest 'officer
or any police officer not below the rank ofa sub-inspector, may, if he
E has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed
an offence against this Act,·
(a) require any such person to produce for inspection any captive r
I
animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy uncured trophy,
specified plant or part or derivative thereof] in his control, custody or
F posHsslon, or any licence, permit or other document granted to him _:.( r
(
or required to be kept by him under the provisions of this Act; :1
t
(b) stop any vehicle or vessel in order to conduct search or inquiry
~
or enter upon and search any premises, land, vehicle or vessel, in the .,,
occupation of such person, and open and search any baggage or I
G other thine11 in his possession; r
I
(c) seize any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy
or uncured trophy, or any specified plant or part or derivative thereof, ' \ )---
in respect of which an offence against this Act appears to have been
committed, in the possession of any person together with any trap,
H r'
~
STATE OF U.P. v. LALLOO SINGH [PASA YAT, J.] 425
i"'
·~·
tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon used for committing any such offepce A
and, unless he is satisfied that such person will appear and answer
any charge which may be preferred against him, arrest him without
warrant, and detain him:·
Provided that where a fisherman residing within ten kilometers of
a sanctuary or National Park, inadvertently enters on a boat, not used B
., for commercial fishing, in the territorial waters in that sanctuary or
-{ National Park, a fishing tackle or net on such boat shall not be
seized."
9. Sub-section (2) of Section SO was omitted by Act 44 of 1991. The
amendment read as follows: c
"36. Amendment of Section SO.· In Section SO of the principal Act,~
(a) in sub-section (I),·
(i) in clause (a), for the words "trophy or uncured trophy", the words
"trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant or part or derivative thereor'
D
·'-
shall be substituted;
(Ii) for clause (c), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:·

"(c) seize any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy
or uncured trophy, or any specified plant or part or derivative thereof, E
in respect of which an offence against this Act appears to have been .
committed, in the possession of any person together with any trap,
tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon used for committing any such offence
· and, unless he Is satisfied that such person will appear and answer
J-_ any charge which may be preferred against him, arrest him without F
warrant, and detain him:
Provided that where a fisherman, residing within ten kilometers of
a sanctuary or National Park, inadvertently enters on a boat, not used
for commercial fishing, In the territorial waters in that sanctuary or
National Park, a fishing tackle or net on' such boat shall not be G
seized.";
·-I (b) sub-section (2) shall be omitted;
(c) after sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall be inserted,
namely:-
H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.
''
A 11
(3·1\) Any officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant
Director of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden, who, or whose
subordinate, has seized any captive animal or wild animal under clause
(c) of sub-section (1) may give the same for custody on the execution
by 'any person of a bond for the production of such animal if and
when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
B offence on account .of which the seizure has .been made.";
(d) in sub-section (6), for the words "meat or uncured trophy",
)-
wherever they occur, the words "meat, uncured trophy, specified
plant, or part or derivative thereto" shall .be substituted;
C (e) after sub-section (7), the following sub-sections shall be inserted,
namely:·
"(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, any officer not below the rank of rm Assistant Director
of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden shall have the powers,
D for purposes of maki~g investigation into any offence against any
provision of this Act,·
(a) to issue a search warrant;
(b) to enforce the attendance of witnesses;
E (c) to compel the discovery and production of documents and material
objects; and
(d) to receive and record evidence.
(9) Any evidence recorded under clause (d) of sub-section (8) shall
F be admissible in any subsequent trial before a Magistrate provided
that it has been taken in the presence of the accused person. 11
Sub-section (2) of Section SO before omission reads as follows:
"Any officer of a Bank not inferior to that of an Assistant Director
G of Wild Life Preservation or Wild Life Warden, who or chose sub·
ordinate has seized any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel, or weapon under
clause (c) of sub-section (I), may release the same, on the execution
by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property to be }-
, released, if. and when required, before the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has
H
STATEOFU.P.v.LALLOOSINGH[PASAYAT,J.) 427
"'" ,.,.. been made." A
IO. ln viev· o~ the clear language of sub-section (I) of Section SO,
Section 4S7 of the Code has no appliCation. But there is another provisiOn
which also is relevant i.e. Section 4S I of the Code that relates to the order
for custody and disposal of the property pending trial in certain cases. lt
provides that ·when any property is produced before any criminal Court, B
during any enquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for
proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the enquiry or
the trial. It also provides for action to be taken when the property is subject
to speedy and natural decay. If the Court otherwise thinks it expedient to do
so, the Court may after recording such evidence as it thinks fit may pass C
orders for sale of the property or disposal thereof.

11. The real complexity of the issue arises as to what is the effect of
the expression "to be dealt with according to law", .as. appearing in sub-
section (4) of Section SO of the Act.
r)
12. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that when the
property on seizure becomes the property of the· Government, the Magistrate
, cannot pass any order for release thereof or interim custody thereof.

13. For appreciating this contention reference is necessary to Section
39 of the Act. Clause (d) of sub-section (I) of Section 39 deals with a E
situation when any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool has been used for
committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act.
The twin conditions are that the vehicle etc. must have been used for
committing an offence and has been seized. Mere seizure of the property
without any material to show that the same has been used for committing an
offence does not make the seized property, the property of the Government. F
At this juncture, it is also to be noted that under sub-section (1) of Section
SO action can be taken if the concerned official has reasonable grounds for
·believing that any person has committed an offence under the Act. In other
words, there has to be a reasonable ground for belief that an offence has been
committed. When any person is detained, or things seized are taken before G
the magistrate, he has the power to deal with the same "in accordance with
law". There is a significant addition in sub-section (4) by Act 16of2003 i.e.
requirement of intimation to the Chief Wild Life Wardon or the officer authorized
in ti1is regard as to the· action to be taken by the Magistrate when the seized
property is taken before a Magistrate. A combined reading of the omitted
sub-section (2) and the substituted sub-section (3A) of the Section SO makes H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A the position clear that prior to the omission, the officials under the Act had
the power to direct release of the seized article. Under sub-section (I), the -.>-
power for giving· temporary custody subject to the condition that the same
shall be produced if and when required by the magistrate is indicative of the
fact that the Magistrate can pass appropriate orders in respect of the
purported seized property which is taken before him. While dealing with an
B application for temporary release of custody, there cannQt be a complete
~djudication of the issues involved as the same is a matter for trial. While
dealing with the application the Magistrate has to take into account the
statutory mandate that the seized property becomes the property of the State
Government when the same has been used for commission of an offence
C under the Act and has been seized. It appears that insertion in sub-section
(4) refating to the intimation to the Chief Wild Life officer or the officer
authorized by him is intended to give concerned official an opportunity of
placing relevant materials on record before the· Magistrate passes any order
relating to release or custody. In appropriate cases on consideration of
materials placed before him, prayer for such rel.ease or custody can be rejected.
D
14. It is to be noted that under sub-section O) of Section 50 for the
purpose of entry' seizure,. arrest and detention the official has to fonn the --+
belief on reasonable grounds that the person has committed an offence under
the Act. The Magistrate is, therefore, required to consider these aspects while
E dealing with the application as noted above. It cannot be a routine exercise.
As noted above, the High Court is not justified in holding that Section 457
of the Code has application. \

15. It appears that by order dated 26.3 .200 I respondent was required to
indicate whether he is prepared te>deposit a bond ofRs.2,00,000/-as security.
p If the said security has been furnished, because of passage of time the
impugned order shall remain in force, though in view of the analysis made ~-
above the conclusions are not sustainable. ·

16. Learned counsel for the parties tould not tell us whether the trial
in the matter has been completed. We dispose of the appeal on clarifying the
G legal issues involved;

17. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

D.G. Appeal disposed of.