2024:KHC:19684 WP No. 22694 of 2015 IN THE…
Confiscation order dated 26.07.2010 and appellate confirmation dated 18.03.2015 quashed; lorry KA 09/3789 to be released to petitioner on proof of ownership and bank guarantee of Rs.1,25,000/-.
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: 2024:KHC:19684 WP No. 22694 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 22694 OF 2015 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.S. PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O SUBRAYA KOLLURAYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT BODHANEGADHE, NETTANIGE, MUDNUR VILLAGE AND POST, KUKKEBETTU, KASARGOD - 611 005.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHIRAG U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ADITHI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR IN CRL.APPEAL NO.194/2010 BY ORDER DATED.18.3.2015 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The owner of the lorry which was seized in Crime No.O.R.69/2006-2007 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 62, 71A, 80 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is before this Court challenging the confiscation order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the authorized and Deputy Conservator of Forest, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the order of confiscation.
Forests, Puttur, to keep the seized property along with the Lorry in his possession till completion of enquiry. On completion of enquiry, a report was submitted stating that the wood, which was being transported in the lorry was illegally cut in the reserved forest. The Authorized Officer passed an order under Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1983, confiscating the lorry belonging to the petitioner to the State Government, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 71D of the Karnataka Forest Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned AGA for the State. Perused the entire material on record.
final report having been submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner is not required for investigation.
reported in (2015) 4 KLJ 258 has held at paragraph
reads as follows :-
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while seeking release of the vehicle has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
NC: 2024:KHC:19684 WP No. 22694 of 2015
of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1135 . However, what is to be noticed at the out set is that the said decision is rendered in the circumstance where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the disposal of property pending trial as provided under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C In the instant case, the vehicle seized is for commission of offence under the Forest Act and Rules and the application for interim custody is to be considered in that light.
5. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 80, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the need to preserve forest wealth has indicated that the forest produce and the materials used for commission of forest offence should not be released as a matter of course, since it would encourage the offenders to repeat the offence. The learned Government Advocate would therefore contend that if the Mahindra Pick-Up vehicle is released, the
NC: 2024:KHC:19684 WP No. 22694 of 2015
petitioner would indulge in similar acts and therefore, the court below has justified.
6. Having perused the said judgment, it is no doubt true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration all aspect has held that the vehicle involved in committing forest offence should not be released including other materials used for committing the forest offence. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also indicated that it would be open for the courts to consider by imposing conditions, more particularly, in the nature of insisting on bank guarantee for release to be made on case to case basis. If the said aspect of the matter is kept in view, it is seen that the petitioner hails from neighboring state and the vehicle is also registered there. Therefore, if in the instant case the vehicle is released subject to the condition of furnishing appropriate bank guarantee and imposing condition that the vehicle shall not ply in the State of Karnataka until the proceedings are over and the petitioner is exonerated and also if the petitioner is directed to produce the vehicle before the Competent Authority as and when required, failing which the
NC: 2024:KHC:19684 WP No. 22694 of 2015
bank guarantee would be invoked, the ends of justice would be met and the object as indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also to be achieved."
6. Having regard to the legal principles established in
the aforesaid case, it would be appropriate to release the subject vehicle in favour of the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee.
7. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed . The order
dated 18.03.2015 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore sitting at Puttur in Criminal Appeal No.194/2010 and the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Authorized and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, i.e., 2nd respondent in Crime No.O.R 69/2006-07 dated 26.11.2010 are hereby quashed.
lorry bearing registration No.KA 09/3789 in favour of the petitioner subject to condition that he producing the proof
NC: 2024:KHC:19684 WP No. 22694 of 2015
of ownership and also the Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-.
Sd/JUDGE
NG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lorry confiscated under Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act could be released after investigation was complete and final report filed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. B.S. Prabhakara Rao
State of Karnataka, by Secretary to Government, Forest Department
The Authorised and Deputy Conservator of Forests, D.K. District, Mangalore
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
