Uttarakhand High Court
C482/750/2020 on 2 November, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
Sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No.750 of 2020
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bhadola, Advocate,
for the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA, with
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder, for the State
of Uttarakhand.
The brief facts of the case are that the
applicant to the present C482 application is a
Taxi Driver, who owns and runs a Taxi, bearing
Registration No.UK15TA 0481, which
according to the description of the vehicle, it is
a Maruti van.
It is contended that in an incident, which
has chanced, on 08.09.2019, when the Taxi was
intercepted by the officials of the Forest
Department, one of the passengers who was
being carried, who was travelling in the said
vehicle was found to be carrying bones, teeth
and nails of some wild animal. On the recovery
of the said articles, the vehicle was seized, for
its alleged involvement in commission of the
wildlife offence by invoking the provisions
contained under section 39 (1) (d), and
consequently the forfeiture, was made under
section 51 (2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act
1972.
In the present C482 application, the
applicant has put a challenge to the order dated
18.11.2019, which was passed by the DFO,
Lansdowne, and the order dated 25.11.2019,
which was passed by the Additional CJM,
Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, who is presently
ceased with the Forest Crime No.34/Ko/2019-
2020, and by the order impugned while treating
the said vehicle, as to be a case property has
declined its release. The said order on being
challenge in the Revision No.04 of 2020, has
been affirmed.
After having heard the learned counsels
for the parties, and particularly, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case,
where the actual carrier of the prohibited parts
of the body of the wildlife, could not be directly
attributed to the present applicant, who is a
Taxi Driver, and who owns a Taxi, because the
recovery was found to have been made from the
passenger, from his bag who was travelling in
the said vehicle.
Be that as it may, all the issues would
still be a subject matter to be decided by trial
court, which is presently under trial before the
court of ACJM, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, this
Court is of the opinion that the forfeiture of the
vehicle bearing Registration No.UK15 TA
0481, on the ground that a criminal trial is
pending consideration in relation to the wildlife
offence, may not justify keeping of the vehicle,
at the Range Office, as it may deplete in its
utility and valuation, and ought to be released,
but simultaneously the interest of the
prosecution and the proceedings has also to be
protected.
In that eventuality, this 482 application is
being disposed of with the following direction:-
(a) The court of ACJM, Kotdwar, Pauri
Garhwal, would get the valuation of the
vehicle done, within ten days from the
date of the receipt of the certified copy of
this judgment.
(b) Upon furnishing of the valuation report,
the applicant would furnish a security of
25% of the valuation amount thus
determined by the valuer on the
directions of the ACJM. The deposit of
the amount would be made by the
applicant before ACJM, Kotdwar within
a period of one week from the date, when
he is brought to the knowledge of the
actual valuation done.
(c) As soon as the deposit is made, the
forfeited vehicle would be released in his
favour.
(d) During the pendency of the aforesaid
forest case, the applicant undertakes that
he will not sell the vehicle in question or
create any third party encumbrance in
any manner whatsoever.
(e) As and when the vehicle is required to
be produced before the court during the
course of the trial, he will ensure to do it,
without any failure.
Subject to the aforesaid direction, the
482 application stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
02.11.2022
NR/
