Interim custody of seized shark fins allowed where no material showed attempted export or completed wildlife offence.

Seized shark fins were ordered to be returned in interim custody under Section 451 CrPC because the record did not show a completed offence or any attempt to export the goods abroad. The court noted that two shark-fin species fell in Schedule IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which does not impose a total ban on possession or internal trade, but restricts foreign export or import without permission. As no material indicated a foreign destination or prohibited trade, the objection to release was rejected and protective conditions were directed to safeguard the property and prevent unauthorised transport.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim return of the seized shark fins under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, notwithstanding the wildlife seizure and the prosecution's objection based on alleged prohibited trade and export restrictions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Analysis: The seized goods comprised three species of shark fins, of which one species was found not to fall under any Schedule, while the other two were placed in Schedule IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The statutory position noticed was that Schedule IV does not create a total ban on possession or internal trade, but restricts export or import to foreign countries without prior permission. The records did not disclose any material showing that the consignment was meant for any foreign destination or that the petitioner had committed or attempted to commit the alleged offence. In the absence of such material, the objection to release was found unsustainable, and the Magistrate's refusal to return the property was treated as mechanical.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to return of the seized property under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to conditions safeguarding the property and restricting foreign transport without permission.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge succeeded and the seizure was interfered with only to the extent necessary to secure interim custody of the property on protective conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized wildlife articles are not shown to be wholly prohibited and there is no material of attempted export or other completed offence, interim custody may be granted under Section 451 CrPC subject to suitable conditions.

---