Saju Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-33-B-3280. He is the first accused in O.R. No.12/2023 of Karikulam Forest Station, alleging offences punishable under section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The aforesaid vehicle, which is a Tipper Lorry, was found on 03.12.2023, dumping waste into the forest and was immediately seized. According to the prosecution, the aforesaid vehicle was parked inside the forest dumping the waste. On verification, it was realised that the waste was generated from a service station by the name ‘Grace Water Service Station’.

Subsequently, petitioner filed an application as Crl.M.P. No.4847/2023 in O.R. No.12/2023 of Karikulam Forest Station under section 451 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 dismissed the application, against which this petition under section 482 is preferred.

I have heard Sri. Santharam P., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Ashi M.C., the learned Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner’s vehicle has been lying in the custody of the respondent from 03.12.2023. It was seized while it was attempting to dispose of waste containing grease and other engine oil into the forest. Undoubtedly, the vehicle is involved in a forest offence under sections 27(1)(e) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. The possibility of the vehicle being used again for the commission of offences cannot be completely ignored. At the same time, no purpose would be achieved by retaining the vehicle either with the police authorities or at the forest office, as it would only cause damage and ruin to the vehicle and consequent loss. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 10 SCC 283] the Supreme Court had observed that the powers under section 451 should be exercised expeditiously and judicially after imposing appropriate conditions. 5. At the same time, in the decision in State of Kerala v. K.Krishnan (2000) 7 SCC 80, it was observed that in cases involving offences under the Forest and Wildlife statutes, vehicles are not to be released as a matter of course and if released, minimum conditions of furnishing of a bank guarantee ought to be imposed. In this context, it is necessary to refer to section 53 of the Act, which empowers the Forest Officer to release seized property on the execution of a bond for the production of the property so released. Though such a provision exists in the statute book, the decision of the Supreme Court directs the furnishing of a bank guarantee when forest offences are involved. 6. On a harmonious reading of the decisions in Sunderbhai Ambalal's case (supra) as well as Krishnan's case (supra), this Court is of the view that the nature of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner requires a balancing of protection of ecology and prevention of pollution as well as the need to maintain the vehicle without being damaged. The precautionary principles preventing the degradation of the environment compelled a Division Bench of this Court to issue directions in W.P.(C) No.7844/2023 not to release vehicles dumping waste in public places without informing the High Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid principles of law, this Court is of the view that the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-33-B-3280 ought to be released to the petitioner on interim custody, provided he furnishes a bank guarantee for half the value of the vehicle, especially since provisions for confiscation are also applicable to the instant case.

In the result, I set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.4847/2023 in O.R. No.12/2023 of Karikulam Forest Station on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranni and direct the learned Magistrate to issue orders releasing the vehicle to the petitioner on the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to 50% of the value of the vehicle, as assessed by a competent valuer.

(ii) Petitioner shall file an undertaking that he shall not use the vehicle for the commission of similar offences.

(iii) The vehicle shall not be sold or transferred to any person without permission of the court until the conclusion of the trial.

(iv) The vehicle shall be produced before the court as and when required.

Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.