High Court of Karnataka directed Deputy Conservator of Forests to exercise power under Section 63 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 to decide an interim application for release of seized machinery and property by the petitioner.
Petitioner directed to approach jurisdictional Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for release of property based on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14635 WP No. 107272 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 107272 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOPINATH S/O NARASIMHA NAYAK, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MUDBHATKAL, BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.S. KINI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPIDate: 2023.12.20 12:52:27 +0530
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO REOPEN HIS SAW-MILL IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. LAXMINARASIMHA WOOD INDUSTRIES, MUDABHATKAL, BHATKAL AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to:
SAW MILL under the name and style of M/s.Laxminarasimha Wood Industries” under the valid license and permits (Annexure-A). The respondent No.2the Range Forest Officer, Bhatkal, registered FIR in ROR No.01/2023-24 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 62, 80, 104-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “K.F.Act”, for brevity). The FIR and seizure report are at Annexure-B. Respondent No.2 issued notice dated 07.08.2023 to the petitioner (Annexure-C) directing him not to carrying out any operations in SAW MILL. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences (Annexure-D). The petitioner made request to Deputy Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the “DCF”, for brevity) seeking release of seized property. The DCF has issued endorsement (Annexure-E) dated 26.10.2023 stating that matter is sub-judice and the petitioner may approach jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 451 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C”, for brevity) (Annexure-F) seeking direction to the investigating officer to hand over the seized property i.e. tools, machinery, wood and open the lock of the SAW MILL of the petitioner. The prosecution has filed objections to the said application (Annexure-G). Learned Magistrate has passed the order in that application on 09.11.2023 and dismissed the application on the ground that Investigating Officer has not filed property form with regard to the property mentioned in the application (Annexure-H). The said order has been challenged in this writ petition seeking above stated reliefs.
4. During the investigation, the respondent No.2
has seized the thirty black wood logs, seized the machinery and locked the SAW MILL. The respondent No.2 who is present before the Court submits that he has reported the seizure of wood, the machinery and SAW MILL to the DCF. As seizure is not reported to the learned Magistrate, learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the
application of the petitioner filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The respondent No.2 has not produced the seized property to the learned Magistrate. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of JASWANT SINGH VS. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER1 , has held that authority before whom seized property is produced has power to release if an application is made, considering the provisions of Sections 63 and 71 of K.F.Act. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the property form has not been filed cannot be found fault with.
5. Provisions of Section 63 of the K.F.Act under
the circumstance are relevant which reads thus:
“63. Power to release property seized under Section
62 - Any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Forest Ranger who, or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats, vehicles or cattle under Section 62 may, subject to Section 71 G, release, the same on production of a Bank guarantee equal to the value as estimated by
1 ILR (1979) 2 KAR. 2468
such officer (which shall be renewable from time to time till the final disposal of the criminal proceedings instituted in respect of the alleged offence) and on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released if and when so required before the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.”
is made by the petitioner did not exercise his power as contained under Section 63 of the K.F.Act. Therefore the directions is required to the DCF to exercise his power under Section 63 of the K.F.Act and pass order on the
application filed by the petitioner dated 26.10.2023. With the said direction the writ petition is disposed of.
application of the petitioner within the outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of production of certified copy of this Court.
Sd/JUDGE
AC CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of seized property and machinery under Section 63 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
Whether the learned Magistrate was correct in dismissing the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. due to non-production of property form by the investigating officer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
JASWANT SINGH VS. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICERReferred¶34
JASWANT SINGH VS. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER 1 ILR (1979) 2 KAR. 2468 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gopinath S/o Narasimha Nayak
The State of Karnataka
The Range Forest Officer, Bhatkal
Shivashankar Amannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
