ORDER The petitioner is the owner of Tata Turbo mini lorry bearing No. WB 25B 9012. He gave the lorry for transportation of fish seed from Nayhati, West Bengal to Eluru. When the driver of the lorry was transporting water turtles (melanochelys trijuga) along with fish in the said lorry on 19.2.2010, it was seized at about 11.00 p.m., by the Tahsildar, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. He informed the Divisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada about the seizure and handed over the said vehicle along with three accused available in the mini lorry to the Divisional Forest Officer, who, in turn, handed over them to the Station House Officer, Mudinepalli. On 20.2.2010, the police handed over the case property and the accused to the Forest Range Officer, Vijayawada for further investigation. The Forest Section Officer, Special Duty, Machilipatnam, booked a case on 20.2.2010 and seized the vehicle and water turtles which were found in gunny bags and stock in plastic crates. 50 crates are filled with 1168 turtles and 18 crates were filled with fish. After intimation to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry and as per his orders, the live turtles were released in the natural habitat in Krishna River at Prakasam Barrage and decomposed fish was buried in the sand at the river bund. 2. The Forest Range Officer, Vijayawada, submitted the case records in DOR No. 14/2009-10 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada and the three accused were released by the Forest Range Officer, Vijayawada, after taking personal bonds from them. On 25.2.2010, the Divisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada, called the accused and conducted an enquiry with regard to the offence. Their statements were recorded and the writ petitioner was not present. All the three accused admitted their involvement in the offence and agreed for compounding the offence. They were ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compounding fee and the said amount was paid on 23.2.2010. 3. Their statements were recorded and the writ petitioner was not present. All the three accused admitted their involvement in the offence and agreed for compounding the offence. They were ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compounding fee and the said amount was paid on 23.2.2010. 3. The second respondent, Divisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada, issued a show-cause notice, dated 28.3.2010 to the petitioner and the petitioner, through his General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, submitted a reply dated 15.4.2010 to the second respondent stating that he asked the driver of the lorry to return to HABRA with empty vehicle, but the driver gave deaf ear to him and loaded 1168 turtles along with fish, as he was not interested to return with the empty vehicle and was interested to get hire charges for return trip and he had no knowledge of the alleged offence committed by his driver and helpers. 4. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry, the third respondent herein, passed orders in Reference No. DOR/14/2009-10/VJA, dated 13.5.2010, forfeiting 68 old plastic trays (used for keeping the turtles) and mini lorry bearing No. WB 25B 9012 (used for transportation of turtles) to the State under Section 39(1)(a) and (d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, the Wild Life Act). Challenging the said order, the present writ petition was filed. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests for respondents. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for petitioner that the second respondent issued show-cause notice under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short, the Forest Act), but the third respondent passed the impugned order under the provisions of the Wild Life Act. The third respondent failed to see that the owner of the offending lorry was innocent and he had nothing to do with the offence committed by the driver and other two persons. He relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Sub-Divisional Forest Officer v. Vijay B. Gulati, 1998 (1) ALD 117 (FB) = 1997 (6) ALT 238 (FB), in support of his contention that confiscation of vehicle used in commission of forest offence can be ordered only if owner connived or had knowledge of unlawful use or if the culpability of his agent or driver is shared by him. He also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deptt. of Forests v. J.K. Johnson, (2011) 10 SCC 794 , in support of his contention that the competent authority to detern1ine forfeiture or release of seized property is Magistrate concerned under Section 50(4) of the Wild Life Act and officers are not empowered to seize such property under Sections 50 and 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life Act or compound offences under Section 54 of the said Act. 7. In the instant case, the show-cause notice was issued by the second respondent, Divisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada, who is the authorised officer under sub-sections (2-A) and (2-B) of Section 44 of the Forest Act and also under Section 39(1)(a) and (d) of the Wild Life Act. He recorded the statements of the accused on 21.2.2010 and fixed the date of enquiry as 15.4.2010. The petitioner submitted a reply through his GPA holder on 15.4.2010. The 3rd respondent passed the impugned order on 13.5.2010. The impugned order shows that the record of enquiry alongwith statements recorded by the second respondent were transmitted to the third respondent and after perusing the same, he passed the impugned order forfeiting the vessels and vehicle to the State. The third respondent relied on Section 39 of the Wild Life Act and stated that when the vehicle was found to have been used for committing the offence and was seized under the provisions of the Act, the same shall become the property of the State Government. The third respondent also stated in the impugned order that the owner had not proved to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that the said vehicle was used in carrying turtle without his knowledge or connivance. He stated that the fresh water turtle (melanochelys trijuga) is classified under Schedule-IV at Sl.No.15 of the said Act and hunting of wild animal, snaring, trapping, possession and sale is an offence. 8. The Wild Life Act was enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. Section 2(36) defines 'wild animal' as any animal specified in Schedules I to IV and found wild in nature. 8. The Wild Life Act was enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. Section 2(36) defines 'wild animal' as any animal specified in Schedules I to IV and found wild in nature. Schedule I contains Mammals in Part I, Amphibians and Reptiles in Part II, Whale Shark in Part IIA, Birds in Part III, Crustacea and Insects in Part IV, Coelenterates in Part IV A, Mollusca in Part IVB, Echinodermata in Part IVC. Schedule II to IV contain certain animals and reptiles. Water turtles are included in Sl.14 (Three-keeled turtle) and 15 (Tortoise) of Schedule IV. 9. Chapter V of the Wild Life Act deals with trade or commerce in wild animals, animal articles and trophies. Section 39 is relevant and it reads as follows: "39. Wild animals, etc., to be Government property.-(1) Every- (a) wild animal, other than vermin, which is hunted under Section 11 or sub-section (1) of Section 29 or sub-section (6) of Section 35 or kept or bred in captivity or hunted in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or found dead, or killed by mistake; and (b) animal article, trophy or uncured trophy or meat derived from any wild animal referred to in clause (a) in respect of which any offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has been committed; (c) ivory imported into India and an article made from such ivory in respect of which any offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has been committed; (d) vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this Act, shall be the property of the State Government, and, where such animal is hunted in a sanctuary or National Park declared by the Central Government, such animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting shall be the property of the Central Government. (2) Any person who obtains, by any means, the possession of Government property, shall, within forty-eight hours from obtaining such possession, make a report as to the obtaining of such possession to the nearest police station or the authorized officer and shall, if so required, hand over such property to the Officer-in-charge of such police station or such authorized officer, as the case may be. (3) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer- (a) acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control, or (b) transfer to any person, whether by way of gift, sale or otherwise, or (c) destroy or damage, such Government property." 10. Section 48A is also relevant for the purpose of present case and it reads as follows: "48-A. Restriction on transportation of wild life.-No person shall accept any wild animal (other than vermin), or any animal article, or any specified plant or part or derivative thereof, for transportation except after exercising due care to ascertain that permission from the Chief Wild Life Warden or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf has been obtained for such transportation." 11. Chapter VI of Wild Life Act deals with prevention and detection of offences. Section 50 gives power of entry, search, arrest and detention to the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf or the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any forest officer or any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. They can stop any vehicle or vessel in order to conduct search or inquiry or enter upon and search any premises, land, vehicle or vessel, in the occupation of any person, and open and search any baggage or other things in his possession. Sub-section (4) of Section 50 states that any person detained, or things seized under the foregoing power, shall forthwith be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to law under intimation to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by him in this regard. 12. Section 51 of the said Act deals with penalties. Sub-section (4) of Section 50 states that any person detained, or things seized under the foregoing power, shall forthwith be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to law under intimation to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by him in this regard. 12. Section 51 of the said Act deals with penalties. Sub-section (2) of Section 51 empowers the Court trying the offence may order forfeiture to the State Government of any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, trophy, any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon, used in the commission of the said offence. Sub-section (3) says that such forfeiture shall be in addition to any other punishment that may be awarded for such offence. Section 54 empowers the officers to compound the offence. The proviso to Section 54 says that no offence, for which a minimum period of imprisonment has been prescribed in Section 51 shall be compounded. Section 55 deals with the cognizance of offences. Section 57 deals with presumption to be made in certain cases. 13. Chapter VI A of the said Act provides for forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade. Section 58A which appears in this chapter says that the provisions of this chapter apply only to the persons who have been convicted of an offence punishable under this Act with imprisonment for a term of three years or more and every associate of such person. Section 60A provides for reward to persons in cases where the Court imposes a sentence of fine, the Court may, when passing judgment, order that the reward be paid to a person who renders assistance in the detection of the offence or the apprehension of the offenders out of the proceeds of fine not exceeding fifty per cent of such fine. Similarly, Section 60B authorises the State Government to empower the Chief Wild Life Warden to order payment of reward not exceeding ten thousand rupees to be paid to a person who renders assistance in the detection of the offence or the apprehension of the offender, from such fund and in such manner as may be prescribed. 14. Thus, stringent provisions were made in the Wild Life Act in order to curb trade or commerce in wild animals and for forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade. 14. Thus, stringent provisions were made in the Wild Life Act in order to curb trade or commerce in wild animals and for forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade. In the instant case, immediately after seizure of the vehicle and goods, the authorised officer should have taken them before the concerned Magistrate to be dealt in accordance with law under intimation to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by him as provided under Section 50(4) of the Wild Life Act, but no such step was taken. On the other hand, a show-cause notice was issued by the second respondent and the statements of the accused were recorded and the same was transmitted to the third respondent, who, upon perusing the same, passed the impugned order. 15. In State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, 2008 (2) ALD 63 (SC) = (2008) 14 SCC 624 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the scope of Section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life Act vis-a-vis the powers of the Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code). In the said case, on 12.3.1997 during the course of checking, a Sub-Inspector of Excise found a Tata Sumo vehicle carrying 206 Kg. of antlers. The vehicle owner Madhukar Rao was not therein at the time of checking. The Excise Sub-Inspector informed the officers of the Forest Department and a case was registered. The four persons who occupied the vehicle were arrested and the vehicle and the antlers were seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life Act. The Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, was duly informed about the institution of the case on 13.3.1997. The owner of the vehicle moved for its release on the ground that he was not an accused in the case and he had no concern with the commission of the offence. The Magistrate allowed the petition and directed for release of the vehicle by order dated 12.5.1997. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Raipur. It was contended that the Magistrate erred in allowing the release of the vehicle in disregard of Section 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life Act, as the seized vehicle became the property of the Government and further contended that the power of release under Section 451 of the Code could be exercised only in respect of vehicles seized by a police officer. The Sessions Judge by order dated 5.6.1997 allowed the revision relying upon a Bench decision of the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Thereafter, the Wild Life Warden and Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur passed an order on 16.6.1997 declaring the seized vehicle as Government property in terms of Section 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life Act. The owner filed a writ petition before the High Court at Jabalpur. A Full Bench of the High Court found that the Magistrate's power to release a vehicle during the pendency of trial was not affected by the provisions of the Wild Life Act. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decision of the Full Bench of the High Court was upheld. It was held that the provisions of Section 39(1)(d) of the Wild Life Act would come into play only after a Court of competent jurisdiction found the accusation and the allegations made against the accused as true and recorded the finding that the seized article was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence. 16. Section 51 of the Wild Life Act which provides for penalties states that any person who contravenes any provision of this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees or with both. Section 54 deals with the power to compound offences and in proviso it says that no offence for which a minimum period of imprisonment has been prescribed in Section 51 can be compounded. Ignoring the same, the respondents 2 and 3 compounded the offence by ordering payment of Rs. 25,000/-. 17. None of the provisions of the Wild Life Act have been taken note of by the respondents 2 and 3 while dealing with the present case. It is unfortunate that respondents 2 and 3, who are the custodians of the wild life, have ignored the provisions of the Act meant for protection of wild life and for dealing with the illegal transportation or trade. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K Johnson's case (supra), noticed the provisions of the Wild Life Act and held as follows: "41. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K Johnson's case (supra), noticed the provisions of the Wild Life Act and held as follows: "41. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that a comparative reading of pre-amended Section 54(2) and Section 54(2) as substituted by Act 16 of 2003 makes the legislative intent clear that seized articles shall be forfeited on composition of the offence under the 1972 Act. When the language of the statutory provision is plain and clear no external aid is required and the legislative intention has to be gathered from the language employed. In our view, neither Section 54(2) of the 1972 Act by itself nor Section 54(2) read with Section 39(1)(d) or any other provision of the 1972 Act empowers and authorizes the specified officer under Section 54, on composition of the offence, to deal with the seized property much less order forfeiture of the seized property used by the person suspected of commission of offence against the Act. 42. In view of the above, the order passed by the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad for forfeiture of the vehicle and two rifles to the State Government is de hors the provisions of the 1972 Act and unsustainable. The High Court has rightly set aside such illegal order. However, the Single Judge was not right in his order dated March 29, 2005 in directing the respondents therein (present appellants) to release the vehicle and rifles. The Division Bench also erred in maintaining the above direction. Since the items were seized in exercise of the power under Section 50(1)(c), the seized property has to be dealt with by the Magistrate under Section 50(4) of the 1972 Act. The respondents 1 to 3 must accordingly apply to the concerned Magistrate for the return of seized items who obviously will consider such application according to law." 19. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Vijay B. Gulati's case (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present case, as the said decision was rendered under the provisions of the Forest Act. 20. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Vijay B. Gulati's case (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present case, as the said decision was rendered under the provisions of the Forest Act. 20. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is set aside and respondents 2 and 3 are directed to refer the matter to the concerned Magistrate under the provisions of the Wild Life Act to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this Court, dated 25.6.2010, shall abide by the decision of the concerned Magistrate. 21. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed.