Judgment Heard Mr. A.K. Bhangde, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State. 2. Applicant No.2 is registered owner of Truck No.CG-04-J-7195. Applicant No.1 is power of attorney holder of applicant No.2. The said truck was intercepted by police at Dongaon in front of Government Hospital, Tahsil: Mehkar, District : Buldana. It was found that the said truck was carrying meat of animals from Nagpur to Mumbai. On the allegation that there was illegal transportation of meat in the truck and that the truck had met with an accident, an offence under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6(1), (2) and 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was registered by Dongaon Police Station on 7th December, 2011. 3. During the course of investigation, meat has already been auctioned by the police. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 do not have any claim over the meat. They had moved the Court of Magistrate at Mehkar for release of the above stated truck on execution of the bond. The learned Magistrate took a view that in view of the provisions of Section 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act the truck had become government property and cannot be released. The application, as such, was rejected. 4. The present application is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that to secure the ends of justice it is necessary to quash and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and direct the police to release the truck of applicant No.2 on execution of bond by his power of attorney holder in the sum as this Court may find just and proper. 5. During the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the police do not appear to be aware of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Section 6 deals with constitution of State Board for Wild Life. Subsection (2) of the said section also pertains to the same subject. Section 9 prohibits hunting. As such, none of the sections mentioned in the first information report are relevant to the facts of the case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is at pains to convince the Court that first information report has been properly registered. Subsection (2) of the said section also pertains to the same subject. Section 9 prohibits hunting. As such, none of the sections mentioned in the first information report are relevant to the facts of the case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is at pains to convince the Court that first information report has been properly registered. I could see the difficulty of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have gone through the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. In the first place, there is no allegation that the meat found in the truck was of any wild animal. The vehicle carrying meat could become the property of the Government under Section 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, if the vehicle has been used for committing an offence under the Act and has been seized under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The contents of the first information report have been described by me hereinabove. It is abundantly clear that the first information report does not disclose any offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. It appears to me that the Police Officers who had recorded first information report were not at all aware of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. If the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. The case simply falls under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. The learned trial Magistrate could have examined the facts of the case and should not have gone by the label applied by the police. Had the facts of the case been thoroughly examined, probably the learned Magistrate could have released the truck on execution of the bond. It is, thus, obvious that the order of the learned Magistrate needs to be quashed and set aside and the truck needs to be released on execution of the bond with certain conditions. Hence, I pass the following order. 7. The order of the learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No.107 of 2011 (Annexure-3), dated 10th January, 2012, is quashed and set aside. Hence, I pass the following order. 7. The order of the learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No.107 of 2011 (Annexure-3), dated 10th January, 2012, is quashed and set aside. Truck No.CG-04-J-7195 be released either to applicant No.2 or to applicant No.1, on production of requisite power of attorney, on execution of the bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs.five lacs only) with following conditions : i) applicant No.2 or his power of attorney (applicant No.1) will not change the description of the truck ; ii) applicant No.2 or his power of attorney will not part with the possession of the truck without prior permission of the trial Court ; iii) applicant No.2 or his power of attorney will not dispose of the truck in any manner without obtaining prior permission from the learned trial Court ; iv) applicant No.2 and his power of attorney will produce the truck before the trial Court or appellate Court as and when required to do so. 8. In case, applicant No.2 authorizes his power of attorney holder to execute the bond, the learned Magistrate shall examine all the documents. The learned Magistrate shall also examine original registration book and insurance papers of the vehicle before releasing the vehicle on the bond as per this order. Xerox copies of all the documents be retained on record of the trial Court.