Judgment:
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition Is Filed U/S 482 Of Cr.P.C. Seeking To Quash The Order Dated 13.05.2013 Passed By The Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Jmfc Court, Hospet In Foc No.23/2014-15 Insofar As Imposing Condition No.4 And Order Dated 18.07.2014 Passed By The Iii-Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bellary, Sitting At Hospet, In Crl.Rp.Nos.5024/2014 To 5039/2014.)
1. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor is directed to take notice for the respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Addl. State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
3. The petitioners have sought for relaxation of condition No.4, imposed by the Additional Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC Hospet, in FOC No.23/2014-15, wherein the learned Magistrate has imposed a condition while releasing the vehicle in favour of the petitioner that - "each petitioner shall furnish a nationalized Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.10,00,000,/- in favour of the Court and Bank guarantee shall keep alive by periodical renewal during the pendency of the case".
4. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate was also questioned before the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bellary, sitting at Hospet, in Crl.RP No.5024 to 5039 of 2014 and the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Revision Petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking modification of condition No.4.
5. It is not disputed that the vehicles of the petitioners have been seized by the forest officials in connection with forest offences. There is no dispute as to Section 63 of the Karnataka Forest Act empowers release of the property seized under Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, which also imposes the responsibility on the authorised officer or the Court as the case may be to impose a condition for production of Bank guarantee. The said provision reads as follows:-
"Section 63. Power to release property seized under Section 62 - Any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Forest Ranger who, or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats, vehicles or cattle under Section 62 may, subject to Section 71 G, release, the same on production of a Bank guarantee equal to the value as estimated by such officer (which shall be renewable from time to time till the final disposal of the criminal proceedings instituted in respect of the alleged offence) and on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released if and when so required before the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made."
6. The execution of the Bank guarantee by the owners, at the time of release of the vehicle is mandatory. The Revisional Court has also relied upon the decisions of this Court reported in 2004 (5) KLJ 466 (SC) in the case of Section Forester and another Vs. Mansur Ali Khan, and another decision reported in 2002 (3) KLJ 269, in the case of State by Assistant Conservatory of Forests, Shikaripur Sub Division Shikaripur and another Vs. Ziaulla holding that furnishing of the Bank guarantee is mandatory.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that he is not on the point of legal requirement under the mandatory provision of Section 63 of the Act, but, he submits that the imposition of uniform condition to all the owners of the vehicles, for production of Bank Gurantee to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- is unreasonable. Therefore, he sought for modification of the said condition. This particular aspect has not been considered either by the trial Court or by the Revisional Court.
8. Now, the question is "Whether the imposition of the condition requiring the owners to produce the Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- invariably and irrespective of the nature and value of the vehicles seized is correct or not is to be considered by this Court.?
9. If the above said provision is meticulously and meaningfully read, Section 63 of the Karnataka Forest Act, prescribes a condition requiring the owner of the vehicle for production of a Bank Guarantee and that should be equal to the value as estimated by such Officer (emphasis supplied). That clearly an indication that the value has to be estimated by such an Officer or the Court, before directing the production of a Bank Guarantee. As to what would be the correct value is depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of the vehicle, model of the vehicle and also performance of the vehicle, the estimation has to be done by the Officer in accordance with any known standards.
10. The meaning of the word 'estimate' as per the Websters's dictionary is "the act appraising or valuing an opinion or quality of a person or a thing". According to my opinion, the Judge or the authorized officer who has to estimate the value should estimate the same on the basis of some standards to ascertain as to the value of the vehicle as on the date of seizure depending on its model, nature and performance. If the Judge or the Officer is unable to estimate the value, he has to take the assistance seeking the evaluation report from the competent authority i.e. Regional Transport Officer concerned or any other competent authority and thereafter fix the amount of Bank guarantee amount.
11. Therefore, the imposition of the condition directing the petitioners to produce the Bank guarantee for Rs.10,00,000/-, without properly estimating the value in accordance with any of the recognized standards or any basis, in my opinion, is not proper. However, it cannot be said that, such a condition cannot be imposed directing the party to produce the Bank Guarantee at all. However, after estimating the value as contemplated under Section 63 of the Karnataka Forest Act, the Competent Authority has to impose such a condition in accordance with the estimation.
12. The learned Counsel has produced before this Court, the copy of the Valuation Report of each vehicle seized in this particular case issued by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, R.T.O. Office, Hospet.
13. As could be seen, none of the vehicle was valued more that Rs.8,50,000/-. Though this is a guideline to the learned Magistrate to estimate the value of the vehicle, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to secure any other information from any other competent authority in order to estimate the value of the vehicle, as on the date of the seizure if he feels it necessary. Therefore, in view of the above observation, the matter has to be remitted to the trial Court, with a direction that the Magistrate to estimate the value of the vehicle as noted above and then impose suitable and appropriate condition directing the owners of the vehicles to furnish such a Bank guarantee as required in teach of the cases.
14. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed and the matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate for appropriate orders. Consequent to the above said reasons, the condition No.4 imposed by the learned Magistrate is hereby set aside. Fresh condition has to be substituted by the learned Magistrate in view of the observations made above.