Shri. Beera D. Gouda S/O Dyava ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 3242 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                       CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                           DHARWAD BENCH


                                DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                              BEFORE

                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
                           CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100337 OF 2021
                      BETWEEN:

                      SHRI. BEERA D. GOUDA S/O DYAVA GOUDA
                      AGE: 60 YEARS,
                      OCC: OWNER OF LG VEHICLE NO. KA-15/987
                      R/O: UDALLI POST: DODAMANE,
                      TALUK SIDDAPUR, DIST: KARWAR
                      PIN CODE -581355.                      ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SHRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV.)

        Digitally
        signed by J
                      AND:
        MAMATHA
J
MAMATHA Date:         1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        2023.06.15
        10:52:59 -
        0700                 BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
                             KYADAGI DIVISION KYADAGI,
                             UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR,
                             REPRESENTED BY
                             ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                             HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                             DHARWAD BENCH.

                      2.     THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY
                             CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
                             SIRSI DIVSION, SIRSI,
                             DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA (KARWAR)
                             REPRESENTED BY ADDL.
                             STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                             HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                             DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SHRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
                               -2-
                                    CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021



                             ***

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397
r/w 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 14.02.2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10/2014
PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, U.K., KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI, AND THE ORDER
DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED IN FOC.3/2011-12 BY THE
AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST, SIRSI DIVISION, SIRSI- RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN
U/S 24 (e), 63, 71(a) OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963,
WHEREIN 407 LIGHT GOODS VEHICLE BEARING REGISTERED
NO.KA-15/987     BELONGING     TO  THE   PETITIONER   IS
CONFISCATED, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION.

     THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 06.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

Revision petitioner/applicant feeling aggrieved by the

order passed by first Appellate Court on the file of I Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, in

Crl.A.No.10/2014 dated 14.02.2019 preferred this revision

petition.

2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with

their ranks as assigned before the 'Authorised Officer' for the

sake of convenience.

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of applicant

can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on receipt of credible

information, the informant forest guard along with his officers

and panchas went to Hosamanju forest check post on

21.11.2011 at 3.30 a.m., and found vehicle bearing registration

No.KA-15/987 coming from Bilagi towards Siddapur. The driver

of said vehicle on finding the gate of check post closed, stopped

the vehicle about 50 mtrs. back to the check post. The

informant along with his Superior Officer being suspicious went

to the parked vehicle. On seeing them, two persons got down

from the vehicle and escaped in the forest. One of the person

was apprehended. On search of the vehicle, they found 80 logs

of Bharani wood were loaded. The apprehended Narayan Beera

Gouda on demand, has not produced any pass or permit for

transporting the wood and revealed the names of his

companions who fled away from the place. The vehicle along

with wood was seized by the forest officials and accordingly, a

case was registered. The seized vehicle and forest produce

were produced before the Authorised Officer for further action.

4. The Authorised Officer after conducting enquiry and

on hearing both sides passed the impugned order dated

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

20.12.2013 confiscating the seized vehicle bearing No.KA-

15/987 and wood material to the State.

5. The said order of Authorised Officer was challenged

by applicant before first Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10/2014.

The first Appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence on

record dismissed the appeal by order dated 14.02.2019 and

affirmed the order passed by Authorised Officer.

6. Revision petitioner/applicant feeling aggrieved by

the order of Authorised Officer and the first Appellate Court

preferred this revision petition contending that applicant was

not aware of his vehicle being used for committing the forest

crime. The Authorised Officer after ascertaining the ownership

of the vehicle from RTO, Siddapur, issued show cause notice to

the applicant and then applicant came to know that his vehicle

was being used for committing the forest crime. Now, vehicle

is in the interim custody of applicant. No any criminal

prosecution was launched against the apprehended accused by

filing the charge-sheet. Therefore, impugned order of

Authorised Officer affirmed by the first Appellate Court cannot

be legally sustained. The evidence of PWs-1 to 4 are all the

forest officials and their version cannot be relied to hold that

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

the vehicle belonged to this applicant was used for committing

the forest offence. Therefore, prayed for allowing revision

petition and to set aside the order of first Appellate Court and

also that of Authorised Officer dated 20.04.2013.

7. In response to notice, learned High Court

Government Pleader has appeared for both the respondents.

The records of confiscation proceedings of respondent No.2 has

been secured.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides.

9. On careful perusal of the material evidence placed

on record before respondent No.2 - Authorised Officer, it would

go to show that on 21.11.2011 at 3.30 a.m., vehicle bearing

No.KA-15/987 belonging to applicant was searched at the

check post gate and found 80 logs of Bharani wood were loaded

in the vehicle. Out of three persons in the vehicle, two have

escaped in the forest and one was apprehended who disclosed

his name as Nayaran Beera Gouda. On demand to produce

documents for transporting 80 logs of Bharani wood, has not

produced any pass or permit to transport the wood and also

revealed the names of his companions who escaped from the

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

place. The seized vehicle and the forest produce were

produced before the Authorised Officer for further action.

10. On the basis of the information furnished by RTO,

Siddapur, with respect to vehicle bearing No.KA-15/987,

Authorised Officer has issued show cause notice for initiating

confiscation proceedings. The applicant who is the owner of

seized vehicle appeared before the Authorised Officer through

counsel and filed reply. The evidence of PWs-1 to 4 was

recorded. The Authorised Officer after hearing both sides and

on appreciation of evidence passed impugned order confiscating

the seized vehicle and forest produce to the State.

11. The Authorised Officer recorded a finding that the

vehicle belonging to the applicant was seized, since it was

engaged in transporting 80 logs of bharani wood without there

being any valid pass or permit. The seized 80 logs of bharani

wood were not having any seal of the Forest Department. One

of the person in the vehicle Narayan Beera Gouda was

apprehended and he disclosed the names of other two persons

who fled away from the place. The case was accordingly

registered in Kyadagi Forest Case No.3/2011-12 for the

offences punishable under Sections 24 (3), 63 and 71 (a) of the

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The Authorised Officer has also

recorded finding that applicant has not produced any evidence

to show that he has taken necessary precautions from misusing

his vehicle for transporting the forest produce. On such

finding, Forest Officer has ordered for confiscating the vehicle

belonging to the applicant and also the forest produce which

was being transported in his vehicle.

12. The main contention of learned counsel for revision

petitioner is that no any charge-sheet has been filed from

21.11.2011 till this day against the persons who were found to

have been transporting forest produce in the vehicle belonging

to the applicant. Therefore, the order of confiscation passed by

the Forest Officer which is affirmed by first Appellate Court

cannot be legally sustained. In support of his contention,

reliance is placed on the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this

Court in AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DEPUTY

CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, BAGALKOT VS.

RAMAKRISHNAPPA KEDARBA URANKAR (1997 CRL.L.J

4695) wherein it has been observed and held that confiscation

of vehicle used for transporting sandal wood illegally where the

accused is acquitted in criminal trial, it cannot be said that the

vehicle was used for commission of any offence.

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

13. Learned High Court Government Pleader relied on

the subsequent judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in

D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR VS. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF

FOREST [2002 (2) KLJ 537] wherein it has been observed

and held that:

" Under Section 62 of the Act when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer... The provisions of sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of section indicates without any ambiguity that officer seizing any property under Section 62 has to report to the concerned authorised officer under Section 71-A and in other cases the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made... Where two parallel proceedings are initiated, one criminal and another quasi-judicial which is civil in nature, an order of acquittal in a Criminal Court is not binding on the quasi-judicial authority as the proceedings before the quasi-judicial authority is separate and independent. Clause (2) of Section 71-A further provides that where an authorised officer seizes under the sub-section (1) of Section 62 any timber, ivory, firewood 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-

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

section (1) once 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.".

In view of the principles enunciated in this decision,

contention of learned counsel for revision petitioner that non-

filing of charge-sheet would enure to his benefit for challenging

the confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer on

the basis of above mentioned decision relied by learned counsel

for revision petitioner cannot be legally sustained.

14. Learned High Court Government Pleader also relied

on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in DIVISIONAL

FOREST OFFICER AND ANOTHER VS. G.V.SUDHAKAR RAO

AND OTHERS [(1985) 4 SCC 573] wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court while considering Section 44 (2-A) and Section 45 of

Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, has observed and held that

both the proceedings are separate and can be initiated

simultaneously. The Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the stay

granted by High Court for staying the confiscation proceedings

before the Authorised Officer.

- 10 -

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

15. The learned High Court Government Pleader also

relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE OF

KARNATAKA VS. K.KRISHNAN in Special Leave Petition

(Crl.) 233/2000 dated 17.08.2000 wherein it has been

observed and held that the Authorised Officer has the power to

seize any forest produce together with all tools, boats, vehicles

or cattle or any other property used in connection with the

commission of an offence in respect of any forest produce. It

has been further held that Section 71A authorises the

Authorised Officer to order confiscation of the seized property

in certain cases. Any person aggrieved by an order passed

under Section 71A or Section 71C has the right to file an appeal

to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which

the property to which the order relates has been seized.

16. In view of the principles enunciated in D.S.VIJAYA

KUMAR's case referred supra, when once the Authorised

Officer 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.

- 11 -

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

17. In the present case, from the evidence of PWs-1 to

4 and the FIR registered as per Ex.P.2 in Cr.No.3/2011-2012,

Kyadagi forest, vehicle belonging to applicant bearing No.KA-

15/987 is said to have been transporting 80 logs of bharani

wood without there being any valid pass or permit. Thus, from

the evidence on record, it is evident that the vehicle belonging

to applicant is used for commission of forest offence. The

apprehended accused disclosed his name as Narayan Beera

Gouda and revealed the name of person who escaped from the

place as Ravi Krishna Naik - driver of the vehicle and Raghu

Bomma Gouda and against all the three, FIR is registered for

the aforesaid offence.

18. It is upto the applicant/owner to establish by

evidence on record that the vehicle belonging to him was used

by accused Nos.1 to 3 named in the FIR without his knowledge

or consent and has taken all necessary care and precaution to

prevent his vehicle being misused. The applicant has not

brought any worth material evidence in the cross-examination

of PWs-1 to 4. The applicant has also not led any of his

evidence to prove that he has taken all necessary precaution

that his vehicle is being not misused or filed any complaint for

having his vehicle being stolen. Therefore, the Authorised

- 12 -

CRL.RP No. 100337 of 2021

Officer has drawn inference from the conduct of the applicant

that he did not take necessary precaution and allowed his

vehicle to use for committing the forest offence. Therefore, the

Authorised Officer was justified in confiscating the vehicle

belonging to the complainant which was used for commission of

forest offence. The first Appellate Court considering the said

material evidence on record was justified in rejecting the claim

of applicant. There are absolutely no any valid grounds to

interfere with the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court

in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the

Authorised Officer in confiscating the vehicle belonging to the

applicant. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Revision petition filed by the revision petitioner is hereby

dismissed.

The order of the first Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.10/2014

on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

U.K.Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, dated 14.02.2019 is confirmed.

(Sd/-) JUDGE Jm/-