1 2025:CGHC:7856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 127 of 2025 1 - Kishor Dashriya S/o Bhajandas Dashriya Aged About 43 Years R/o Charbhata, Thana-Baghnadi, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bijapur, Distt,-Bijapur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate. For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filled this CRMP under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 28/11/2024 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada, District- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No.20/2024 for supurdnama of vehicle Wagon R bearing registration number CG 08/ AA / 9041. 3. As per the contents of the impugned order one vehicle Wagon R bearing registration number CG 08/ AA / 9041 was seized vide Crime/P.O.R. No. 495/14/2023 P.S. Forest Division Maddad, District- NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.26 10:39:28 +0530 2 Bijapur in connection with offence under Sections 2 (14) (20)(36)(37), 9, 39, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50/51(1) and 52 of Wild Life Protection Act. Petitioner filed an application for Supurdnama of vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, which was heard on 01/10/2024 and rejected. This order was challenged in the revision before the II Additional Sessions Judge, which was also rejected. Hence this petition. 4. The grounds in this petition are that vehicle used for commission of the offence of Wild Life by the driver is without knowledge or permission of the petitioner and if any illegal act has been committed by the driver for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible, petitioner has not received any notice from the Court for confiscation proceeding, the seized vehicle is lying in abandoned condition at police Station District Bijapur since 30/06/2023 and vehicle become useless, petitioner is permanent resident of address mentioned in the petition, petitioner is registered owner of the seized vehicle and he is not involved in the alleged crime, petitioner intends to comply with all the conditions imposed for releasing of the seized vehicle, charge-sheet has not been filed, on these grounds it is prayed that the orders passed by the trial Courts be set-aside and relief be given to the petitioner. 5. 5. Counsel for the State has opposed the ground in this petition and submits that proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle concerned has been initiated by the Police. 6. From perusal of the order of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada, District- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) it is crystal clear that the accused is hunting rare wild animals skins of tiger, leopard, deer and buying and selling their body parts and transporting on the 3 said vehicle, Section 58(a) Property seized in an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act is subject to forfeiture, applicant is not present in the Court and the documents related to the ownership of the vehicle have not been presented in the Court. In such a situation, the trial Courts have not committed any illegality to reject the application for supurdnama of vehicle. 7. Chapter 6-A of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 mentions the confiscation of property obtained from illegal hunting or trade. In this case too, the said vehicle has been seized for the offence under the Wildlife Protection Act. Under this chapter, the proceedings for confiscation of the said property started by the competent investigating officer. In relation to the said action, the competent officer send a notice to the person having the right over the property and asks for the reason why the said property should not be confiscated. In this regard, the owner of the concerned property presents his evidence regarding how he acquired the said property. Thereafter, after hearing the competent officer passes an order to confiscate the said property or release it to the concerned person. In this present case, the competent investigating officer has started the proceedings of confiscation in relation to the confiscated property. Then the owner of the said confiscated property should present his side before the competent investigation officer. In such a situation, no mistake related to law and procedure has been committed by the trial court in passing an order by not handing over the said property to the revisionist/accused on delivery and the order passed dated 01/10/2024 is kept as it is. In such a situation, it does not seem appropriate to give it on handing over, 4 therefore, the trial Courts have not committed any illegality to reject the application for supurdnama of the vehicle. 8. Accordingly, this CRMP is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde