Full Judgment
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 29.9.2014 passed by the Hon'ble V Addl. and Sessions Judge, D.K. Dist., Mangalore, sitting at Puttur in Crl.A.No.390/2013 at Annexure-A which is confirming the interim order dated 10.12.2013 passed by R-1 in Crime No.121/2013 at annexure-b and direct the R-1 to release the Mahindra pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-57- 306 in favour of the petitioner for his interim custody pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings.)
1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.9.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.390/2013, whereunder the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Competent Authority was confirmed. ƒ
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Mahindra Pick-Up vehicle bearing registration No.KL-57- 306. The said vehicle was seized in Crime No, 121/2013 for the offences committed under the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules. The proceeding was initiated under Section 71(A). The petitioner is presently seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. The Competent Authority by order dated 10.12.2013 has rejected the application of the petitioner. The appeal tiled under Crl.A.No.390/2013 has been dismissed. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The respondents have filed their statement of objections. It is contended that when the vehicle belonging to the petitioner has been seized in a forest offence, the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Court is justified. It is pointed out that rosewood was transported in the vehicle and the said vehicle was seized. The petitioner was involved in forest offence and as such, the vehicle is not liable to be released.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while seeking release of the vehicle has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1135. However, what is to be noticed at the out set is that the said decision is rendered in the circumstance where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the disposal of property pending trial as provided under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the vehicle seized is for commission of offence under the Forest Act and Rules and the application for interim custody is to be considered in that light.
5. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K.Krishnan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 80, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the need to preserve forest wealth has indicated that the forest produce and the materials used-for commission of forest offence should not be released as a matter of course, since it would encourage the offenders to repeat the offence. The learned Government Advocate would therefore contend that if the Mahindra Pick-Up vehicle is released, the petitioner would indulge in similar acts and therefore, the court below has justified.
6. Having perused the said judgment, it is no doubt true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration all aspect has held that the vehicle involved in committing forest offence should not be released including other materials used for committing the forest offence. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also indicated that it would be open for the courts to consider by imposing conditions, more particularly, in the nature of insisting on bank guarantee for release to be made on case to case basis. If the said aspect of the matter is kept in view, it is seen that the petitioner hails from neighboring state and the vehicle is also registered there. Therefore, if in the instant case the vehicle is released subject to the condition of furnishing appropriate bank guarantee and imposing condition that the vehicle shall not ply in the State of Karnataka until the proceedings are over and the petitioner is exonerated and also if the petitioner is directed to produce the vehicle before the Competent Authority as and when required, failing which the bank guarantee would be invoked, the ends of justice would be met and the object as indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also to be achieved. ƒ
7. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, the orders impugned herein are set aside. The first respondent is directed to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-57-306 to the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- which shall be kept current until the case is disposed of. On release of the vehicle, the said vehicle shall not 'be plied within the State of Karnataka till the case is disposed of. If found, it would be seized immediately. The vehicle shall be produced before the 1st respondent as and when directed by the 1st respondent. Needless to mention that on conclusion of the proceeding, if it is found that the vehicle was involved in committing a forest offence, at that stage, it would be open for the 1st respondent to confiscate and forfeit the vehicle depending on the orders that would be passed by the 1st respondent on merits. ƒ
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.