Allowed

P S Samiulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2023CRL.RP/480/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the confiscation of a vehicle transporting sandalwood powder. It directed the release of the vehicle to interim custody subject to a bank guarantee, undertakings against alienation, and photographic record-keeping pending trial completion.

What did the court decide?

The vehicle bearing registration No.AP02-TD-0938 released to interim custody subject to a Rs.5,00,000/- bank guarantee and undertaking against alienation or color change.

P S Samiulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 480 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 480 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P S SAMIULLA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O WALLISAB RESIDING AT NO.18-7-6 AZADNAGAR HINDUPUR ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BUDRUNNISA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY T M RAVI KUMAR RANGE FOREST OFFICER MOBILE FOREST SQUAD BENGALURU

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, FOREST MOBILE SQUAD, BENGLAURU IN FOC NO.59/2018-19 DATED 28.05.2019 AND CONFIRMED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN CRL.A.NO.43/2019 DATED 09.01.2020.

¶17

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 480 of 2021

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision petition is filed challenging the order of confiscation dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Authorized Officer, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Mobile Squad, Bengaluru in FOC No.59/2018-19 under Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1963' for short) as well as the judgment dated 09.01.2020 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Crl.A.No.43/2019, which upheld the order of confiscation.

¶22

The facts in brief are that, on receipt of credible information, the Bengaluru Mobile Forest Squad headed by its Zonal Forest Officer checked the vehicles moving on HindupuraGowribidanuru Main Road at Vidurashwatha junction on 13.12.2018 at 11.30 pm. On 14.12.2018 at about 02.15 am, a vehicle bearing registration No.AP-02-TD-0938 was searched and it was found carrying 220 bags of sandalwood powder. The driver of the vehicle did not furnish any documents to justify the consignment. Thus, a case in FOC No.59/2018-19 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 2(7)(A),

¶23

¶24

CRL.RP No. 480 of 2021

¶25

2(18), 71A, 80, 84, 86, 87, 104B of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules 153, 156, 157 read with 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The vehicle along with the sandalwood powder was seized and proceedings were initiated for confiscation under Section 71A of the Act, 1963. An application was made on 28.05.2019 for release of the vehicle. The Authorized Officer held proceedings and examined PWs.1 to 4, who marked Exs.P1 to P8 and marked M.Os.1 and 2. The Authorized Officer after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed an order dated 28.05.2019 holding that the vehicle in question was used for the commission of the forest offence and hence, passed an order confiscating the vehicle and the sandalwood powder.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner belatedly challenged the order under Section 71D of the Act, 1963. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties and perusing the record held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reason which was beyond the control of the petitioner and hence, condoned it. However, it dismissed the appeal on the ground that no attempt was made by the petitioner or its

¶27

¶28

CRL.RP No. 480 of 2021

¶29

driver to adduce evidence before the Authorized Officer to establish that they were not aware of the sandalwood powder being transported in the vehicle.

¶30

Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a case in FOC No.59/2018-19 was registered for the offences punishable under various provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules and therefore, until the said case is disposed off, the respondent cannot dispose off the confiscated property. She submitted that the vehicle in question is covered by a permit and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in confiscating the property and keeping it in the custody of the respondent. She submits that she is willing to offer security to the satisfaction of the Court to release of the vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner.

¶32

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that under Section 71A of the Act, 1963, the Officers seizing the property shall without unreasonable delay produce it

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 480 of 2021

¶35

before the Authorized Officer, who shall if he satisfied that a forest offence is committed in respect of any property belonging to the State Government, then, notwithstanding whether prosecution is instituted or not for commission of such a forest offence, order confiscation of the property so seized and sell it, if necessary. He therefore submits that releasing the vehicle in question does not arise and would result in difficulty to identify the vehicle used for the offence.

¶36

I have considered the submission made by the

¶37

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶38

It is not in dispute that a forest offence is registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 2(7)(A), 2(18), 71A, 80, 84, 86, 87, 104B of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules 153, 156, 157 read with 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The forest produce seized is sandalwood powder and under Section 84 of the Act, 1963, the seized forest sandalwood powder is presumed to be the property of the State Government unless proper documents are

¶39

¶40

CRL.RP No. 480 of 2021

¶41

furnished. Under Section 86 of the Act, 1963, the offender shall

¶42

on conviction be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The confiscation of the sandalwood powder and the vehicle in question under Section 71A of the Act, 1963 is therefore just and proper. However, since the vehicle in question is covered by a permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the proceedings in FOC No.59/2018-19 is yet to be concluded, it is appropriate that the vehicle is released to the interim custody of the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not encumber or alienate or transfer it or hand over its possession to any third party or change the colour coated on the vehicle or the shape of the vehicle. The respondent shall capture photographs of the vehicle from all four sides for the purpose of identifying it at the trial in FOC No.59/2018-19. He shall also furnish a bank guarantee for a sum ofRs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) which shall be kept in force, till the disposal of FOC No.59/2018-19.

¶43

In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and disposed off on the following terms:

¶44

¶45

CRL.RP No. 480 of 2021

¶46

i) That the vehicle bearing registration No.AP02-TD-0938 shall be released to the interim custody of the petitioner.

¶47

ii) That the petitioner shall not alienate, encumber or transfer the vehicle to any third person or part with the possession of the vehicle to any person whom so ever.

¶48

iii) That he shall not change the colour coated on the vehicle and the body built on the chasis until disposal of FOC No.59/2018-19.

¶49

iv) That the respondent shall capture photographs of the vehicle from all four sides and place the same in FOC No.59/2018-19.

¶50

v) That the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) which shall be in force, till the disposal of FOC No.59/2018-19 and if he is found guilty, the respondent shall be entitled to invoke and encash the bank guarantee.

¶51

vi) That the vehicle referred above shall be release to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to he filing an indemnity, agreeing to the above.

¶52

¶53

CRL.RP No. 480 of 2021

¶54

In view of the disposal of this revision petition, all the pending interlocutory applications are also disposed off.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

P S Samiulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P S Samiulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Revanna Siddappa G Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H.S. Manjula Vs Smt. Sujatha

Sri. Mohammed Vs Sri. Abdul Salam

Arun Kumar v M Vs State of Karnataka through P S I

Sri Venkatesha Vs Smt Lakshmi Devi

Shashiraj @ Shashikumar Vs State of Karnataka