Karnataka High Court
The Authorised Officer vs Sri Prashanth Pai P R on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.27801 OF 2014 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA)
AND:
SRI PRASHANTH PAI P.R.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O RAGHUVEER G.Y.
R/AT SHIVAPPA NAYAKA NAGARA,
SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
JUDGMENT DATED 20.4.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.DISTRICT,
MANGALORE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.145 OF 2010 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT DATED
24.9.2010 PASSED BY THE PETITIONER IN SAS.CR.6/FOC/2006-
07 IN CRIME NO.84 OF 2006 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
Petitioner-authorized officer under the Karnataka
Forest Act, 1963, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this
Court for assailing the judgment dated 20.04.2012
(Annexure A) whereby the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge,
D.K. District, Mangaluru, having allowed Respondent's
Criminal Appeal No.145/2010 has facilitated release of the
subject vehicle in his favour.
2. The respondent despite service of notice has
chosen to remain unrepresented. However, that will not
come in the way of the Court disposing off this old matter,
in accordance with law, inasmuch as no adverse order is
being passed against him in the fitness of circumstances
mentioned supra.
3. Having heard the learned AGA for the petitioner
and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is of the
considered opinion that the provisions of Section 71(A)(2)
of the 1963 Act permit any authorized officer or any
government official to seize the vehicle or/and the
substances specified in the section, that are involved in a
'forest offence' as rightly submitted by learned AGA.
4. The above opinion is supported by the following
text of section 71(A)(2) of the 1963 Act:
"(2) Where an authorized officer seizes under
sub-section (1) of section 62 any timber, [3]
[ivory, firewood [4] [gulmavu (machilus
marantha) bark, dalchini bark, halmaddi
(exudation of ailantus malabricum), canes] and
charcoal which is the property of the State
Government or any sandalwood], or where any
such property is produced before an authorised
officer under sub-section (1) and he is satisfied
that a forest offence has been committed in
respect of such property, such authorised officer
may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted
for the commission of such forest offence, order
confiscation of the property so seized together
with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and
cattle used in committing such offence."
There are two expressions employed by the legislature in
this provision viz (i) "where an authorized officer seizes",
and (ii) "where any such property is produced before an
authorized officer". In other words, the seizure being done
by the authorized officer himself is one scenario and the
seizure having been done by anyone, the property is
produced before the authorized officer, is another.
5. Learned AGA is more than justified in contending
that the provisions of the 1963 Act need to have purposive
construction so that only on the technical ground of vehicle
or the specified substances being seized by anyone other
than the Authorized Officer, the offender does not go scot
free. In the instant case, relief is granted to the respondent
on a hyper technical ground, namely the vehicle in question
was seized by the Police and not by the Authorized Officer.
The essential function of the Authorized Officer under the
1963 Act cannot be discharged by anyone else, is true.
However, seizing of the property cannot be construed to be
such an essential function where after seizure the same is
made out to the Authorized Officer as rightly argued by
learned AGA.
6. The above having been said, this Court is not
inclined to set aside the impugned judgment for more than
one reason: firstly, this aspect of the law was not clear
arguably hitherto; secondly, the impugned judgment is
more than a decade old and upsetting it would not be fair to
the citizen who happens to be the sole respondent; lastly,
no purpose would be served by recalling the subject vehicle
to the custody of the Authorized Officer at this length of
time, when the diminished value of the same would be
frugal and the game shall not be worth the candle.
In the above circumstances and with the above
observations, this Writ Petition is disposed off, costs having
been made easy.
This court places on record its deep appreciate for the
able assistance rendered by the learned Additional
Government Advocate Mr. B.V. Krishna.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cbc
