http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  591 of 2007

PETITIONER: Authorised Officer & Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr

RESPONDENT: Asgarli Khan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/2007

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.591 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4460 of 2004)

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

By an order dated 13th of September, 2004, delay of 265  days in filing SLP was condoned by this Court and thereafter  notice was issued.  Leave granted. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order  dated 9th of July, 2003 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in  Criminal Revision Petition No.495 of 2001 by which an order  dated 13th of February, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions  Judge,   XIXth Court at Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No.45 of  1996 was affirmed.  

Based on an information regarding forest offence and  smuggling of sandalwood, the Inspector of Police, Siddapur Police  Station, Bangalore, seized lorry bearing No. CAM 5589 on 28th  March, 1995 together with sandalwood weighing about 2,435 Kg.  As per the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, the  seized materials and the lorry were produced before the  Authorised Officer \026 Deputy Conservator of Forests. The  Authorised Officer, who was the competent authority under the  Forest Act, initiated a confiscation proceeding under Section 71-A  of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and by an order dated 28th of  February, 1996 he passed an order confiscating the Sandalwood  involved in the offence and also the lorry bearing number CAM  5589. The said order of confiscation was challenged by the  respondent by filing an appeal before the Additional Sessions  Judge, XIXth Court, Bangalore which was allowed by the learned  Sessions Judge by order dated 13th of February, 2001. Feeling  aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the  Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest and the  State of Karnataka filed a Criminal Revision Petition No.495 of  2001 before the High Court. The aforesaid criminal revision  petition was dismissed by the High Court only on the ground that  the same was not maintainable in law in the absence of the State  of Karnataka being made a party. That is to say the High Court  was of the opinion that the Authorised Officer and Deputy  Conservator of Forest was not competent to prefer the criminal  revision application without obtaining necessary sanction from  the State of Karnataka against the order of the learned Sessions  Judge, Bangalore and therefore the State of Karnataka was a  necessary and proper party to file the criminal revision case and  accordingly the criminal revision at the instance of Deputy  Conservator of Forest only must be held to be not maintainable  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

in law.  

Aggrieved by this order of the High Court, the instant  special leave petition was filed which on grant of leave was heard  in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties.  

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  examined the impugned order and other materials on record.  Having looked into the records of this case, we find that the  State of Karnataka was made petitioner No.2 before the High  Court in the criminal revision case. During the pendency of the  special leave petition this Court, an application for amendment  of the cause title of the special leave petition has also been filed  in which the following prayer has been made : "The State of  Karnataka be represented by Principal Secretary, Forest,  Environment and Ecology Department, M.S. Building, Bangalore."              Considering that the State of Karnataka had also in fact  challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore in  the aforesaid criminal revision petition in which it was petitioner  no.2, there was no reason for the High Court to dismiss the  criminal revision petition on the ground aforementioned. In view  of the above, we also allow the prayer for amendment made by  the appellant during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly,  we allow the application for amendment and direct the  department to incorporate the amendment.  

For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal, set aside  the impugned order and restore the criminal revision petition to  the file of the High Court and request the High Court to decide  the same at an early date preferably within three months from  the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  No order  as to costs.