http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 233  of  2000

PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. KRISHNAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/08/2000

BENCH: K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Leave granted.

   A  jeep bearing Registration No.KLI 3839 and Lorry  with Registration  No.KA-21-2071  were seized by Shri  Padmanabha Gowda,  Range Forest Officer, Puttur on 3.9.1997 along  with six  Kiralbhogi  logs,  a  forest produce  which  was  being transported without the permit in violation of the provision of  the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred  to as "the Act").  After registration of Case No.199/96-97, the vehicles  along with the seized timber were produced  before the  Authorised  Officer  (Deputy  Conservator  of  Forests, Mangalore  Division,  Mangalore)  for  taking  action  under Section  71-A  of  the Act.  Vide order dated  6.2.1997  the Range  Forest  Officer,  Puttur was authorised to  keep  the vehicles  and  logs  under  his safe  custody  till  further orders.  Lorry owner filed an application for the release of his  vehicle which was rejected on 14.5.1997.  However, vide order  dated  11.7.1997, passed by the  Additional  Sessions Judge, D.K.  Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1997, the said  lorry was released to its registered owner on  interim custody.   Thereafter  the respondent filed  an  application praying  for  the release of the vehicle to him  on  interim custody.   On  production  of  RC   Book  the  jeep  bearing Registration  No.KLI 3839 was ordered to be released to  the interim  custody of the respondent subject to the  following conditions:

   "1.   The  applicant  shall   furnish  irrevocable  Bank Guarantee  for Rs.85,000/- from a scheduled bank which shall be renewable from time to time till the disposal of the case charged against the jeep.

   2.  The applicant shall not alienate or further encumber the  vehicle and change the identify of the vehicle till the disposal of the case.

   3.   The  applicant shall produce the vehicle on 1st  of every month of next working day if 1st happens to be holiday

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

before this court."

   Not  satisfied with the aforesaid order, the  respondent herein  filed  a petition under Section 482 of the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure  in the High Court of Karnataka  praying for  quashing  of  order  dated   15.9.1999  passed  by  the Authorised  Officer  and  for the unconditional  release  of vehicle.  It appears that the High Court directed the SPP to take  notice  and  immediately thereafter passed  the  order impugned  by  which  it was directed that the order  of  the Authorised  Officer  in  so far as it related  to  the  bank guarantee  shall  stand  modified and the  respondent  shall furnish only two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the authority to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- each for the purpose of  getting  the  interim  custody  of  the  jeep.   Feeling aggrieved,  the  State  of Karnataka has filed  this  appeal special  leave.   by The Act was enacted to consolidate  and@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ amend the law relating to forests and forests produce in the@@                           JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ State  of  Karnataka with the main object of preserving  and@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ protecting  the  forests  and their produce  in  the  State. Forests  produce  has been defined under sub-section (7)  of Section  2 as under:  "2(7) "forest produce" includes,-- (a) the  following whether found in or brought from a forest  or not, that is to say:

   Timber,   charcoal,  caoutchoue,   catechu,   sandalwood lootikai  (Capparis Mooni), wood oil, sandalwood oil, resin, rubber  latex,  natural  varnish, bark, lac, mahua  or  ippe (Bassialatifolia)  flowers  and  seeds,  seed  of  Prosopis, juliflora,   kuth,  and  temburni   or   tupra   (Diospyros- Melanoxylon) leaves, rosha, (Terminalia Chebulia, Terminalit Belerica phyllanthus Emblica, Rampatre and Shigakai;  and

   (b)  the  following  when found in, or  brought  from  a forest that is to say:

   i)  trees  and leaves, flowers and fruits and all  other parts or produce not herein before mentioned of trees;

   ii)  being plants not trees, (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts of produce of such plants;

   iii)  wild animals and peafowls and skins, tusks, horns, bones,  silk  cocoons, honey and wax and all other parts  or produce of wild animals, pea fowls and insects;  and

   iv)  peat,  surface soil, rock, and minerals  (including limestone),  laterite,  mineral  oils, and all  products  of mines or quarries;  and

   iva)  cocoa  beans or pods, garcinia  fruits,  thornless bamboos, Halmaddi, Raldhupa and Kaldhupa;

   v)  such  other  products  of   forests  as  the   State Government  may,  by  notification,  declare  to  be  forest produce;"

   Chapter  VI  of the Act makes provision for  control  of timber  and other forest produce in transit.  The Authorised Officer  has the power to seize any forest produce  together with  all  tools,  boats, vehicles or cattle  or  any  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

property  used  in  connection  with the  commission  of  an offence  in  respect of any forest produce.   An  Authorised Officer  has  also the power to release the property  seized under  Section  62.  All timber or forest produce, which  is not  the  property of Government and in respect of  which  a forest  offence  has  been committed and all  tools,  boats, vehicles  and  cattle used in committing any forest  offence are  liable to forfeiture to the State Government subject to the  provisions  of  Section 71G of the  Act.   Section  71A authorises  the Forest 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.

   Learned  counsel  appearing for the appellant-State  has submitted  and  we agree that the provisions of the Act  are required  to be strictly complied with and followed for  the purposes  of  achieving  the object for which  the  Act  was enacted.  Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property  seized,  which  is   liable  to  confiscation,  is uncalled  for  as  the  same  is  likely  to  frustrate  the provisions  of  the  Act.   Before   passing  an  order  for releasing  the  forest produce or the property used  in  the commission  of the forest offence, the Authorised Officer or the  Appellate  Authority has to specify the  reasons  which justify  such release, apparently, prima facie excluding the possibility  of  such forest produce or the  property  being confiscated  ultimately.   Generally, therefore, any  forest produce  and the tools, boats, vehicles, cattles, etc., used in the commission of the forest offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should not be released.  This, however, does not debar  the  officers  and  the  authorities  under  the  Act including the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders under  the  circumstances  of  each   case  but  only  after assigning valid reasons.  The liberal approach in the matter would  perpetuate  the  commission  of  more  offences  with respect  to  the  forest  and  its  produce  which,  if  not protected,  is  surely  to affect the mother-earth  and  the atmosphere  surrounding  it.  The courts cannot  shut  their eyes  and  ignore  their obligations indicated  in  the  Act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce.  The forests are not only the natural  wealth  of the country but also protector of  human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere.  We are of  the  considered view that when any vehicle is seized  on the  allegation  that  it was used for committing  a  forest offence,  the same shall not normally be returned to a party till  the  culmination of all the proceedings in respect  of such  offence,  including confiscatory proceedings, if  any. Nonetheless,  if  for  any exceptional reasons  a  court  is inclined  to  release  the  vehicle  during  such  pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No  party  shall  be under the impression  that  release  of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is  alleged to have been involved in commission of a  forest offence.   Any  such  easy release would  tempt  the  forest offenders  to  repeat  commission  of  such  offences.   Its casualty  will  be  the  forests  as  the  same  cannot   be replenished for years to come.

   The  approach adopted both by the Authorised Officer and the  High  Court  completely ignores the importance  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

forests  and the purpose of the object for which the Act was made.   As  the appellant-State has not prayed for  quashing the  order of the Authorised Officer we refrain to deal with that  even  though we do not approve it.  We  are,  however, satisfied  that  the  High Court had adopted a  very  casual approach  while disposing of the petition under Section  482 of  the Code of Criminal Procedure.  Besides that the  order impugned  is contrary to law, we have our reservations  with respect  to  the powers of the High Court under Section  482 Cr.P.C.  in the matter which we do not express in this case.

   Under  the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and  the order impugned, passed by the High Court is set aside.