Mohit v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In light of the above, this revision is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Indian Forest Act, 1927 ss. 26, 50, 51
- Wild Life Protection Act ss. 2, 27, 29, 39, 50, 51
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In light of the above, this revision is dismissed as infructuous. VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Virendra
Judgment
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.S.R. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent.
This revision has been filed against the order of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut dated 22.03.2023 in Case Crime No. 38 of 2022-23 under Sections 26, 50, 51 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Sections 2, 27, 29, 39, 50, 51 of Wild Life Protection Act vide impugned order the learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer of the revisionist to release his vehicle, which is involved in the above case crime number.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the only ground mentioned by the learned Magistrate while rejecting the application is that the confiscation proceedings are going on. Learned counsel further submits that in view of Sundarbhai Amba Lal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SUPREME OURT 638, pendency of confiscation proceedings shall not be an impediment in releasing the vehicle.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that the confiscation proceedings have been concluded and the vehicle in question has been confiscated in favour of the State.
Learned counsel for the revisionist concedes that the revision has become infructuous in view of the fact that the vehicle in question has been confiscated in favour of the State.
Operative part
In light of the above, this revision is dismissed as infructuous. VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Virendra
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In light of the above, this revision is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Forest Act, 1927 — ss. 26, 50, 51; Wild Life Protection Act — ss. 2, 27, 29, 39, 50, 51.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 06 May 2025. The bench was JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.