SHAMSUDDIN AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THESE two applications are directed in matter concerning a piece of Ambergris, which is a solid substance formed in the intestine of the sperm whale. In. Revisional Application No. 510/85 the petitioner Chief Wild Life Warden has challenged order dt. 22-2. 85 and 8-3-85 passed by the learned C. J. M. , Port Blair in Misc. Case No. 3/1985. This Misc. case arose out of an application filed by the O. P. for return of a piece of Ambergris seized by the Officers of the Chief Wild Life Warden. It was alleged in the said application that in the year 1976 the Ambergris in question was seized by police from the possession of one Suresh Chandra Barui u/s. 102 of the Cr. P. C. Police ultimately submitted a report praying for return of the seized article to the person from whom it was seized. Suresh Chandra Barui sold this article to the applicant O. P. on 7-6-1976. Thereafter by amendment of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 whale was treated as a wild life and the provision of the said Act was made applicable to it. On 7-4-83 the applicant O. P. filed an application to the Chief Wild Life Warden with a prayer for issue of ownership certificate in favour of the applicant O. P. but instead of issuing the same certificate the officer under the said Warden seized the said Ambergris. After hearing both the parties the learned Magistrate concluded by the impugned order on the basis of submission made by Mr. Khanna learned Senior A. P. P. that the said Ambergris cannot be said to be uncured trophy as defined in section 2 (32) of the said Act. Accordingly he ordered return of the said seized article to the O. P. by order dt. 22-2-85. By another order dt. 8-3-85 the learned Magistrate granted stay of operation of the said order until 1-4-1985. Against this order this application has been moved. The other Revisional application is filed by one K. Abdul Rahman, Range Officer, Wild Life Division Haddo. He filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4-4-85 alleging violation of section 40 of the said Act which is punishable u/s. 51 of the Act. Against this order this application has been moved. The other Revisional application is filed by one K. Abdul Rahman, Range Officer, Wild Life Division Haddo. He filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4-4-85 alleging violation of section 40 of the said Act which is punishable u/s. 51 of the Act. In the complaint it was alleged that the O. P. on 7-4-83 applied to the Chief Wild Life-Warden for granting permission for transporting this piece of Ambergris from Port Blair to main land. It was also stated that Ambergris was found in the body of sperm whale which have been included in Schedule I of the Wild Life Protection Act. In terms of the said Ambergris being an uncured trophy it is required (Sic) a declaration within 30 days from the commencement of the said Act and such violation is punishable under the Act. The O. P. has been filed to make the declaration this prosecution was lodged on the basis of the complaint filed (Sic ). On this petition the learned C. J. M. considering the complaint found that in para 3 of the petition of complaint was stated that Ambergris is a substance which is spit out by Sperm whale and on the basis of this statement as well as concession made by Mr. Khanna the learned Senior A. P. P. in Misc. Case No. 3/1985 came to the finding that the Ambergris would not be said to be uncured trophy. Accordingly he dismissed the complaint u/s. 203 of the Cr. P. C. By another order dt. 6-4-85 the learned C. J. M. , considered the question of the return of the Ambergris to the O. P. He found that the Ambergris in question has been produced before him u/s. 50 (4) of the Wilt Life Protection Act. Accordingly he is competent to pass an order on this. Learned Magistrate referred to his earlier order in Misc. Case No. 3/85 and directed return of the seized Ambergris to the O. P. on his furnishing bond of Rs. 70,000/- for restoring the property to the Court after the order for return is modified or set aside on appeal and revision and ultimately he accepted the bond furnished and directed making over of the Ambergris to O. P. Mr. N. K. Joshi. These orders have been challenged in this Revisional Application. ( 2 ) MR. 70,000/- for restoring the property to the Court after the order for return is modified or set aside on appeal and revision and ultimately he accepted the bond furnished and directed making over of the Ambergris to O. P. Mr. N. K. Joshi. These orders have been challenged in this Revisional Application. ( 2 ) MR. B. R. Ghoshal, appearing for the petitioner in both the cases has mainly canvassed three points before me. According to him the learned Magistrate has erred in coining to a finding that the Ambergris in question is not an uncured trophy. He further contended that the learned C. J. M. has no jurisdiction to return the seized Ambergris to the O. P. as the seized Ambergris cannot be dealt with under Ss. 451 and 452 and 457 of the Cr. P. C. inasmuch as it was not seized by a police officer. Finally he asserted the concession said to have been made by the learned A. P. P. is based on a wrong notion of law and fact and this Court should not rely on it. Let me now examine the submission made by Mr. Ghoshal one after another. Mr. Ghoshal has referred to Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume No. I, page 295. In its Index the Encyclopaedia Britannica states as follows : - "ambergris, solid substance formed in the Intestine of the sperm whale. It is used chiefly as a spice in the east and in the west it is used to fix the scent of fine perfumes. Ambergris is thought to form as a collection of faces around the indigestable parts a squid and other pray of the sperm whale. It is not definitely known whether the process is normal or the pathological. Ambergris when fresh, is soft and black and has a disagreeable odour. When exposed to sun, air and sea water, it harden, fades and developes a pleasant scent. It has been washed ashore in many countries specially Bahamas and is also found by whalers both in the bodies of captured whales and floating free on the sea. " ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Ghoshal the Ambergris is a part of the body of the sperm whale. He has thereafter relied on the definition of uncured trophy in section 2 (32) of the Wild Life Protection Act. " ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Ghoshal the Ambergris is a part of the body of the sperm whale. He has thereafter relied on the definition of uncured trophy in section 2 (32) of the Wild Life Protection Act. The definition runs thus : - " 'uncured trophy' means the whole or any part of any captive animal or wild animal, other than vermin, which has not undergone a process of taxidermy and includes a freshly killed wild animal. " according to the petitioner the Ambergris in question comes within the definition of uncured trophy as it is a part of a whale and has not undergone any process of taxidermy. ( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned Advocate Mr. Das Gupta appearing for the O. P. has submitted that Ambergris is a vomit of the sperm whale and cannot be treated as a part of the body of the whale. According to him it is a produce from the whale and is not covered by the definition of uncured trophy in the Act. In making his submission he has relied on a Book by K. Tressler and another titled Marine Products Commerce at page 700, Authors have stated the true Ambergris may be found floating on the surface of the open sea or lodged in the lower intenstine of a dead sperm whale where it originated. According to this author's analysis indicates (Sic) that it is a mixture of glyceridic esters (Fats) of complex nature with a waxy ester of the Alcohal Ambreing having the emperical formula C23h40o. ( 5 ) THEN he has also relied on Book "the Sea" from the Time Life Natural Library. It says that the sperm whales predilection for giant squid is the source one of the ocean's most valuable products. The whale swallows squid whole but has never been able to digest the hard parrot like beaks. This some times fails to pass during the digestive tract causing the gradual formation of a dark sticky material with a foul smell which improves on exposer to the air. It further says whales frequently succeed in spewing up their Ambergris in which case it may be found floating. ( 6 ) ON these authorities both sides want this Court to come to a finding on the point if ambergris is an uncured trophy as defined in section 2 (32) of the Act. It further says whales frequently succeed in spewing up their Ambergris in which case it may be found floating. ( 6 ) ON these authorities both sides want this Court to come to a finding on the point if ambergris is an uncured trophy as defined in section 2 (32) of the Act. In this connection I also intend to refer to the definition of trophy u/s. 2 (31) of the said Act. The definition of Trophy and uncured trophy deals with the whole or any part of a captive or wild animal in the case of trophy it has been kept or preserved by any means whether artificial or natural and includes certain things specified therein. Whereas uncured trophys are those which have not undergone any process of taxidermy and include freshly killed wild animal. Reading the authorities cited by both the sides it appears to me that Ambergris involved in this case might very well come within the definition of trophy as well if it is found that Ambergris is part of the sperm whale. It may be noted in this connection the learned Magistrate has not given his own finding on this point. He has only relied on the concession made by the learned A. P. P. and also some parts of the petition of complaint. If I ultimately found that learned C. J. M. in the peculiar facts of this case should not have relied on the concession made by the learned A. P. P. a decision whether Ambergris is an uncured trophy or a trophy has to be arrived at only on the basis of authorities cited before this Court. The court has no expertise to decide whether the authorities cited are real authorities and these books cited so far are only criptic in their dealing with the subject in question. It seems fair to me that this has to be done on evidence to be adduced by both the parties where examination and cross-examination of experts may be necessary. ( 7 ) NOW let me examine if the concession made by the learned A. P. P. is binding on the petitioner. In this connection Mr. Ghoshal referred to a decision reported in AIR 1954 SC 526 wherein it has been held that any erroneous concession of law made by the Advocate cannot be relied upon for saving the plaintiffs. ( 7 ) NOW let me examine if the concession made by the learned A. P. P. is binding on the petitioner. In this connection Mr. Ghoshal referred to a decision reported in AIR 1954 SC 526 wherein it has been held that any erroneous concession of law made by the Advocate cannot be relied upon for saving the plaintiffs. Here this case was given on concession on point of law. In this case concession on point of fact is involved. Perusing the authority cited before me I have no hesitation in my mind that whatever concession made by the learned A. P. P. was not based on the thorough knowledge of the subject. Since this decision if Ambergris is a trophy or uncured trophy within the meaning of Wild Life Protection Act has implication, I do not feel it just and proper to come to a decision relying only on the concession made by the learned A. P. P. particularly when the petitioner in this case have denied that they had given instructions to the learned A. P. P. to make such a submission and also on the fact that the complainant has filed the complaint and is still persisting on the same. ( 8 ) A point raised by Mr. Ghoshal that sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Cr. P. C. has no application in this case has lost its significance as the learned Magistrate has ultimately passed the order for return of the Ambergris to the O. P. in terms of the provision of section 50 (4) of the Wild Life Protection Act. However as I am inclined to send them back for further proceeding before the loomed C. J. M. I do not think that it is necessary now intervening the order passed by the learned Magistrate as he has given the O. P. interim custody of the disputed Ambergris on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 70,000/- for producing the property before the court as and when called for. On these conditions the interim custody cannot be treated as improper. ( 9 ) IN view of what has been stated above the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the petition of complaint is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The petition of complaint is sent back to the learned C. J. M. for proceedings according to law. ( 9 ) IN view of what has been stated above the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the petition of complaint is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The petition of complaint is sent back to the learned C. J. M. for proceedings according to law. It is a case where the learned Magistrate should postpone issue of summons and enquire into the case himself to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Regarding order of giving custody of disputed Ambergris to the O. P. I do not find anything at this stage for my interference. Both these matters are disposed of as indicated above. Order accordingly. .