Ayyub Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition.a.c. goyal, j.1. a jeep bearing no. rnv 2235 was seized by the regional forest officer, mandrayal district, karauli, carrying fishes in violation of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, (in short 'the act') 1972. after registration of the case for the offence punishable under section 51 of the act, 1972, this jeep alongwith fishes was seized.2. an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner for 'supardigi' of this jeep. learned a.c.j.m. karauli, considering the provisions of sections 39 and 50 of the act, 1972, ordered to deliver this jeep to the petitioner on certain conditions including the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of a sum of rs. 40,000/- vide impugned order. hence, this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. against the condition of bank guarantee.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to sub-section (3a) of section 50 of the act, 1972, vehicle may be given for custody on the execution of a bond for the production of the same when so required. according to learned counsel, there is no provision of furnishing bank guarantee. he placed reliance upon jahangir guli khan v. state of madhya pradesh (1) and sultan khan v. state of rajasthan (2).4. learned public prosecutor contended that this jeep is now government property in view of section 39 of the act, 1972, hence condition of bank guarantee was rightly imposed. reliance was placed upon kela ram v. state of rajasthan (3) and state of karnataka v. k. krishhan (4).5. 1 have considered the rival submissions. section 39(1)(d) makes a provision that every vehicle etc. that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this act shall be the property of the state government. it was held in sultan khan's case (supra) that the articles seized will become government property only after it is proved by the prosecution that such seized articles etc. had actually been used in commission of the crime and thus the order of judicial magistrate declining to release the jeep was set-aside. taking similar view in jahangir guli khan's case (supra), the madhya pradesh high court held that magistrate has jurisdiction to release the vehicle for interim custody even though cognizance on a complaint is not taken. section 50 of the act, 1972, provides for powers of entry, search, arrest and detention. sub-section (3a) of section 50 is relevant which is as under :-'(3a):- 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 offence on account of which the seizure has been made.'6. a bare perusal of these provisions goes to show that authorised forest officers may give any captive animal or wild animal for custody on the execution of a bond for the production of such animal if and when so required. thus, the forest officers under sub-section (3a) of section 50 have got power to give on 'supardagi' only captive animal or wild animal and not the vehicle. therefore, the contention of learned counsel can not be accepted that the magistrate had power to release this jeep only on execution of surety bond. while dealing with the. similar provisions of search, seizure and release of the forest produce and vehicles under the karnataka forest act, 1963 in k. krishannan's case (supra), it was held by the hon. apex court that 'generally, therefore, any forest produce and the tools, boats, vehicles, catties, etc., used in the commission of the forest offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should not be released. this, however, does not debar the officers and the authorities under the act including the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders under the circumstances of each case but only after assigning valid reasons. the liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect the mother-earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. the courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. the forest are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. we are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition.'7. the main object of the act, 1972 is to preserve and protect wild animals, birds and plants. liberal approach in such matters with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the act. the liberal approach in such matters would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to wild animals etc. and therefore, the court may release the vehicle during pendency of the case and furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order with regard to imposing a condition of furnishing bank guarantee of rs. 40,000/-.8. consequently, this petition alongwith stay application is hereby dismissed.