http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1484 of 2003 Special Leave Petition (crl.)  3046 of 2003

PETITIONER: Section Forestor & Anr.                          

RESPONDENT: Mansur Ali Khan                                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/2003

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       Leave granted.

This appeal by the State of Karnataka is preferred  against a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at  Bangalore made in Criminal Revision Petition No.4/2003  whereby the High Court directed that a vehicle bearing  Registration No.KA-22M-3866 involved in a forest offence  be released in favour of the respondent herein, on condition  that the said respondent gives an indemnity bond for  Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer, as  also with a further condition that the vehicle in question shall  not be alienated till the criminal case is disposed of and the  same produced as and when required by the trial court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State  contends that the impugned order as to the release of the  vehicle on the facts and circumstances of this case is directly  opposed to the judgment of this Court in the case of State of  Karnataka vs. K.Krishnan  [2000 (7) SCC 80]. The learned  counsel for the respondent contended that the order under  appeal is a discretionary order made on the basis of equity  mainly because of the fact that the vehicle in question was  under seizure for over a period of one year and was rusting  whereby the value of the vehicle was diminishing day by day,  hence, no purpose would be served in keeping such vehicle in  unused condition. Therefore, this Court under Article 136 of  the Constitution should not interfere with the impugned  order. We see from the order of the High Court though the  High Court noticed that in various decisions of this Court in  regard to the release of vehicles used for committing forest  offences ought not to be released as a matter of course, still  the High Court by the impugned order came to the  conclusion that these directions issued by this Court are  applicable only in cases which can be disposed of  expeditiously and in cases where there is no such expeditious  disposal of the proceedings, appropriate order of interim  release can be made on conditions deemed fit by the court or  the authority, as the case may be.       While in regard to the power of the High Court to  release the vehicle in a given set of facts cannot be disputed,  this Court as noticed by the High Court itself has laid down  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

that such power can be exercised for good reasons and in  exceptional cases only. In the instant case, the only reason  given by the High Court for the release of the vehicle is on  the ground that same was in the custody of the officers for  more than one year and there was no likelihood of immediate  disposal of the pending case. This by itself, in our opinion,  would not be a ground for the release of the vehicle because  this would be the case in almost all such cases involving  forest offence. In exceptional cases, the act itself has made a  provision for interim release of the vehicle on the existence  of certain conditions mentioned therein. In the absence of  such conditions being fulfilled, we do not think that the High  Court as a matter of course could pass mechanical orders  releasing such vehicles. Taking into consideration the object of the Forest Act  and other relevant considerations, this court in the above said  case of State of Karnataka vs. K.Krishnan (supra) while  allowing the said appeal held: "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."  

From the above dictum of this Court, we find when a  vehicle is involved in a forest offence the same is not to be  released to the offender or the claimant as a matter of routine  till the culmination of the proceedings which may include  confiscation of such vehicle.

       Release of such vehicle during the pendency of the  proceedings though permissible, same should be done for  good reasons and that also upon a minimum condition of  furnishing bank guarantee as contemplated under the Act  itself.

       In the instant case we find the High Court has  proceeded merely on the basis of a likely delay in disposal of  the criminal case which by itself in our opinion is insufficient  for releasing the vehicle in question.

For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The

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

impugned order of the High Court is quashed and the appeal  is allowed