Clause (1) of the said provision goes to indicate that the seizure of the property should be by the police officer. In the instant case, the seizure, admittedly us not by the police officer but by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bara anki.

Thus , apparently the instant case would not come under the mischief of section 457, Crpc. Under Section 207 if the Motor Vehicle s Act ,the vehicle could have well been seized by the police officer or by any other person authorised in this behalf. But when it was not seized by the police officer,then in that case the provision of section 457 Crpc, would not be attracted.

When any vehicle is seized in the allegation that it was used for committing the offence under the Wild life Protection Act, the same should not normally be returned to the party seeking it's release till the culmination of the Criminal proceedings in respect of the offence if the material so collected prima facie discloses involvement of the vehicle in respect of commission of the offence under the Wild Life Protection Act.

It is for any exceptional reason the Court feels that the vehicle is not prima facie involved in respect of the commission of the offence, the court should impose stringent conditions while ordering it's release so that at the conclusion of the trial, if forfeiture was to be ordered, the vehicle is available in the same Condition in which it was seized casual approach in ordering the release of the seized vehicle has to be seriously deprecated as such casual approach has resulted in frustrating the very object for which statute was enacted.