STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus LALLOO SINGH

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 20-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
LALLOO SINGH 
JULY 20, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT 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 
H 
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 
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 
B 
the seized property it becomes the property of the Government in terms of 
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 per
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.