ORDER : Fact germane for consideration in these cases are as under: On a credible information received, Forest Officials on 01.01.2017 while checking vehicles at Kempannugundi gate, Chickmagaluru District at about 5.00 a.m. had found in the vehicles in question a dead body of the Kadave (stag) in the storage place of luggage and on enquiry, they came to know that inmates of vehicles had visited Chickmagaluru Forest area to celebrate New year and had hunted animals in question near Nethi Chowk by shooting them from a gun and as such, criminal case came to be registered against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 9, 27, 31, 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 71 (a), 50, 51, 52, 55 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’). The vehicles/Mobile Phones/Gun license which were carried by petitioners also came to be seized. 2. Insofar as Crl.P.Nos.8652/2018 and 8711/2018 are concerned, Competent Authority passed an order refusing to release the vehicles and thereafter, petitioner in Crl.P.No.8652/2018 had approached this Court for release of vehicles which came to be rejected by an order dated 27.09.2018 passed in Crl.P.No.5684/2018 with a direction to respondent No.2 therein to reconsider petitioner’s application in accordance with law. Whereas, in Crl.P.No.8711/2018, learned Magistrate has rejected the application on the ground that petitioner had approached this Court in the above said Criminal petition i.e., Crl.P.No.5684/2018 which came to be disposed of as observed herein above. 3. It is pursuant to the direction by the coordinate Bench of this Court, an order came to be passed on 31.10.2018 rejecting the application of petitioners on the ground that direction issued by this Court was on the premise of an argument having been canvassed for release of vehicle under Section 71(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act and there was no direction sought for release of the vehicle under Section 39 (D) of the Act. 4. Insofar as Crl.P.Nos.8707/2018, 8713/2018 & 8708/2018 are concerned, the Competent Authority by order dated 31.10.2018 has rejected the prayer for release of vehicles on same ground as stated herein above. 5. Sri.P.P.Hedge, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Authorities have no power to seize the vehicles in question in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principle Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr. Vs. 5. Sri.P.P.Hedge, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Authorities have no power to seize the vehicles in question in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principle Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr. Vs. J.K.Johnson & Ors rendered on 17.10.2011 in Civil Appeal No.2534/2011 and as such, he prays for release of vehicles unconditionally. 6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson’s case has referred to Madhukar Rao’s case reported in (2008) 14 SCC 624 which arose out of the Full bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2000 (2) MPHT 445 to contend that the expression of ‘seizure’ and ‘confiscating’ connotes different meaning and as such, they cannot be understood conjunctively but disjunctively. Hence, he prays for dismissing the petitions. 7. Having regard to the above stated facts and rival contentions raised, it would suffice to say that Hon’ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson case referred to supra having referred to Madhukar Rao’s case rendered by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court which was in the background of Section 39(1)(d) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, whereunder it came to be held that any property including vehicle seized on accusation or suspicion of a commission of offence under 1972 Act can be released by the learned Magistrate pending trial in accordance with Section 50(4) read with Section 451 of the Code and the seizure of any property including the vehicle on the charge of Commission of offence would not make such property to be property of the State under Section 39 (1) (d) of the Act has arrived at a conclusion that Section 39 (1) (d) which is relevant for confiscating would come into play only after Competent Court of jurisdiction found that accusation and allegations made against the accused were true and recorded a finding that seized article was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of an offence. 8. In fact, Hon’ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson referred to supra has arrived at above stated conclusion by taking into consideration Madhukar Rao’s case (Full Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court) which had been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Madhukar Rao reported in (2008) 14 SCC 624 . 9. 8. In fact, Hon’ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson referred to supra has arrived at above stated conclusion by taking into consideration Madhukar Rao’s case (Full Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court) which had been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Madhukar Rao reported in (2008) 14 SCC 624 . 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhukar Rao’s case at paragraph 19 has clearly held that subsection (2) of Section 50 of Wild Life Protection Act having been deleted, an aggrieved person has no option but to approach the Magistrate directly for interim release of the seized vehicle.” 10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of considered view that it would suffice if liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach jurisdictional Magistrate to seek for release of vehicles/Mobile Phones/Gun license. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition Nos.8713/2018, 8652/2018, 8708/2018, 8711/2018 & 8707/2018 are hereby allowed in part. (ii) Petitioners are granted liberty to file an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C for release of vehicles/Mobile Phones/Gun license before Jurisdictional Court and in the event of such an application being filed, learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same expeditiously at any rate within ten days from the date of filing of such application by keeping in mind the observations made herein above as well as observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson case and Madhukar case referred to herein supra. (iii) In the event of learned Magistrate arriving at a conclusion that vehicles are to be released, he would at liberty to impose such conditions as deemed fit. (iv) It is made clear that learned Magistrate while considering application that may be filed by petitioners afresh shall not be influenced by its earlier order or any observations made by this Court in the earlier order passed. In view of allowing of the petitions, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay filed in all these petitions would not survive for consideration. Hence, they are rejected.