Karnataka High Court

Sri B S Prabhakara Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                               -1-
                                                           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:

                    1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
                          BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
Digitally signed by B
                          FOREST DEPARTMENT,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
                          VIKAS SOUDHA,
Location: HIGH            BANGALORE-560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

                    2.    THE AUTHORISED AND DEPUTY
                          CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
                          D.K. DISTRICT,
                          MANGALORE - 570 001.

                                                               ...RESPONDENTS

                    (BY SRI. M.V. ADITHI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:19684
                                        WP No. 22694 of 2015




     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.

2. The lorry belonging to the petitioner was seized by

the Forest Officer for illegally transporting wood, and a

case was registered in Crime No.O.R.69/2006-2007. The

Authorized Officer ordered the Assistant Conservator of

NC: 2024:KHC:19684

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.

4. Admittedly, after investigation, final report was

submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate for the

aforesaid offences. Normally the vehicle involved in

committing forest offence should not be released, but in

exceptional cases the Court can release the confiscated

property. The investigation having been completed and

NC: 2024:KHC:19684

final report having been submitted before the jurisdictional

Magistrate, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner is not

required for investigation.

5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

P. ABDULLA VS. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, MANGALORE

DISTRICT, DAKSHINA KANNADA AND ANOTHER

reported in (2015) 4 KLJ 258 has held at paragraph

reads as follows :-

"3. The respondents have filed their statement of objections. It is contended that when the vehicle belonging to the petitioner has been seized in a forest offence, the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Court is justified. It is pointed out that rosewood was transported in the vehicle and the said vehicle was seized. The petitioner was involved in forest offence and as such, the vehicle is not liable to be released.

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

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

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

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.