Sri. Rajesh Nayak vs The State of Karnataka, The Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—A Mahindra Pick-up van bearing registration No. KA. 06. KA. 12.6884 owned by this petitioner came to be seized by the Forest officials on 15.11.2011 alleging that the said vehicle was used for committing theft of forest produce and thereby the said vehicle is the subject matter of the offences under the Karnataka Forest Act. After the seizure of the vehicle, the same was produced before the Authorised Officer. The petitioner, as the registered owner of the said vehicle, filed an application before the Authorised Officer for release of the same to his interim custody. Incidentally, one Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA. 19.K.5342, owned by the petitioner, had also been seized in connection with the said case. The release of the said motorcycle to his interim custody was also sought. The Authorised Officer rejected the prayer made by the petitioner in respect of both the vehicles. The said order was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No. 49/2012. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order, though ordered release of the Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle to the interim custody of the petitioner, declined to order release of the Mahendra Pick-up van to the interim custody of the petitioner mainly on the ground that there are prima facie materials to indicate that the said vehicle had been used for carrying forest produce-wooden logs illegally, which is a forest offence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

Of course, from the orders passed by the Forest Officer as well as the learned Sessions Judge it is noticed that there are prima facie evidence to indicate that the vehicle in question was used for carrying wooden logs and those logs were prima facie found to be the property of the Government, thereby, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the forest offences have been committed. However, if the seized vehicle kept in the custody of the respondent-Authorised Officials exposed to weather vagaries, in all probability, it would be rendered useless by the time final order in that regard is passed, in which event, the vehicle may become valueless. Therefore, with a view to protect the interest of both the petitioner as owner of the said vehicle and also the respondent-authorities, it was necessary to have released the vehicle for interim custody by imposing strict conditions so as to ensure the production of the same as and when required. The interest of the respondent would be protected by imposing such conditions, which compel the petitioner to produce the vehicle as and when so directed or in the event of his failure to produce the same, the value thereof could be realized without any hindrance. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met by imposing a condition to furnish bank guarantee to a specified amount, so that in the event of the vehicle ordered to be confiscated to the State and upon failure of the petitioner to surrender the vehicle, the State would be in a position to realize the value thereof. In the light of the above, the petition is allowed. Mahindra Pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. K.A. 12.6884 seized in Forest Offence Case No. 77/2011-12 of Puttur Range, is ordered to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner on his executing indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Forest Officer concerned and subject to further conditions that,-

i) The petitioner shall furnish Bank Guarantee in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the satisfaction of Authorised Officer and shall keep the said Bank Guarantee in force till the disposal of the case;

ii) he shall not alter or change the nature or colour of the vehicle in any manner;

iii) he shall not sell or transfer the vehicle in whatsoever manner to any third party during the pendency of the case; and

iv) he shall undertake to produce the vehicle before the court/authorities concerned, as and when so required.

v) Before releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner, the authority concerned shall take out photographs of the same and shall also draw a detailed mahazar in that regard which shall thereafter form part of records.