Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

State Of M.P. & Ors vs Madhukar Rao.

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jul 10, 2008
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Supreme Court of India
Siège de la cour
New Delhi
Juge
Sema, H.K.
Aftab Alam.
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Questions juridiques, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Droit constitutionnel Mise en application Infractions/sanctions
Résumé
This judgment dispose of four appeals in all of which the same question arises for consideration. The question is whether a vehicle or vessel etc. seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is put beyond the power of the Magistrate to direct its release during the pendency of trial in exercise of powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A vehicle was intercepted carrying antlers and the owner was not in the vehicle at the time of checking. The vehicle and antlers were seized under Section 50(1)(c). Respondent-owner moved the Judicial Magistrate for release of vehicle on Supurdnama. The Magistrate allowed the petition and directed the release of the vehicle. Revision was filed by the Appellant before the Sessions Judge, which was allowed. Respondent filed Writ Petition. The High Court held that Magistrate’s power to release a vehicle during the pendency of the trial was not affected by the legislative changes in the Act and it was fully open to the Magistrate to release the seized vehicle. Hence, the present appeal. The question to adress is whether the Magistrate acted beyond the Section 50(1)(c) of the Act by directing the release of vehicle during pendency under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant contended that amendment to Section 50 and 39(1)(d) made interim release of vehicle impossible. The Court held deletion of Sub-section (2) and its replacement by Sub-section (3-A) in Section 50 of the Act had no effect on the powers of the Magistrate to release the seized vehicle during the pendency of trial under the provisions of the Code. Section 50 and the amendments made thereunder do not in any way affect the Magistrate’s power to make an order of interim release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code. The impugned Order is upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Texte intégral
COU-156283.pdf