http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Special Leave Petition (crl.) 233 of 2000

PETITIONER:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

K. KRISHNAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/2000

BENCH:

K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Leave granted.

A jeep bearing Registration No.KLI 3839 and Lorry with

Registration No.KA-21-2071 were seized by Shri Padmanabha

Gowda, Range Forest Officer, Puttur on 3.9.1997 along with

six Kiralbhogi logs, a forest produce which was being

transported without the permit in violation of the provision

of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to

as "the Act"). After registration of Case No.199/96-97, the

vehicles along with the seized timber were produced before

the Authorised Officer (Deputy Conservator of Forests,

Mangalore Division, Mangalore) for taking action under

Section 71-A of the Act. Vide order dated 6.2.1997 the

Range Forest Officer, Puttur was authorised to keep the

vehicles and logs under his safe custody till further

orders. Lorry owner filed an application for the release of

his vehicle which was rejected on 14.5.1997. However, vide

order dated 11.7.1997, passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, D.K. Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1997, the

said lorry was released to its registered owner on interim

custody. Thereafter the respondent filed an application

praying for the release of the vehicle to him on interim

custody. On production of RC Book the jeep bearing

Registration No.KLI 3839 was ordered to be released to the

interim custody of the respondent subject to the following

conditions:

"1. The applicant shall furnish irrevocable Bank

Guarantee for Rs.85,000/- from a scheduled bank which shall

be renewable from time to time till the disposal of the case

charged against the jeep.

2. The applicant shall not alienate or further encumber

the vehicle and change the identify of the vehicle till the

disposal of the case.

3. The applicant shall produce the vehicle on 1st of

every month of next working day if 1st happens to be holiday

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

before this court."

Not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the respondent

herein filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Karnataka praying

for quashing of order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the

Authorised Officer and for the unconditional release of

vehicle. It appears that the High Court directed the SPP to

take notice and immediately thereafter passed the order

impugned by which it was directed that the order of the

Authorised Officer in so far as it related to the bank

guarantee shall stand modified and the respondent shall

furnish only two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the

authority to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- each for the purpose

of getting the interim custody of the jeep. Feeling

aggrieved, the State of Karnataka has filed this appeal

special leave. by The Act was enacted to consolidate and@@

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

amend the law relating to forests and forests produce in the@@

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

State of Karnataka with the main object of preserving and@@

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

protecting the forests and their produce in the State.

Forests produce has been defined under sub-section (7) of

Section 2 as under: "2(7) "forest produce" includes,-- (a)

the following whether found in or brought from a forest or

not, that is to say:

Timber, charcoal, caoutchoue, catechu, sandalwood

lootikai (Capparis Mooni), wood oil, sandalwood oil, resin,

rubber latex, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua or ippe

(Bassialatifolia) flowers and seeds, seed of Prosopis,

juliflora, kuth, and temburni or tupra (Diospyros-

Melanoxylon) leaves, rosha, (Terminalia Chebulia, Terminalit

Belerica phyllanthus Emblica, Rampatre and Shigakai; and

(b) the following when found in, or brought from a

forest that is to say:

i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other

parts or produce not herein before mentioned of trees;

ii) being plants not trees, (including grass, creepers,

reeds and moss), and all parts of produce of such plants;

iii) wild animals and peafowls and skins, tusks, horns,

bones, silk cocoons, honey and wax and all other parts or

produce of wild animals, pea fowls and insects; and

iv) peat, surface soil, rock, and minerals (including

limestone), laterite, mineral oils, and all products of

mines or quarries; and

iva) cocoa beans or pods, garcinia fruits, thornless

bamboos, Halmaddi, Raldhupa and Kaldhupa;

v) such other products of forests as the State

Government may, by notification, declare to be forest

produce;"

Chapter VI of the Act makes provision for control of

timber and other forest produce in transit. The Authorised

Officer has the power to seize any forest produce together

with all tools, boats, vehicles or cattle or any other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

property used in connection with the commission of an

offence in respect of any forest produce. An Authorised

Officer has also the power to release the property seized

under Section 62. All timber or forest produce, which is

not the property of Government and in respect of which a

forest offence has been committed and all tools, boats,

vehicles and cattle used in committing any forest offence

are liable to forfeiture to the State Government subject to

the provisions of Section 71G of the Act. Section 71A

authorises the Forest Officer to order confiscation of the

seized property in certain cases. Any person aggrieved by

an order passed under Section 71A or Section 71C has the

right to file an appeal to the Sessions Judge having

jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which

the order relates has been seized.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has

submitted and we agree that the provisions of the Act are

required to be strictly complied with and followed for the

purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was

enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the

property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is

uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the

provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for

releasing the forest produce or the property used in the

commission of the forest offence, the Authorised Officer or

the Appellate Authority has to specify the reasons which

justify such release, apparently, prima facie excluding the

possibility of such forest produce or the property being

confiscated ultimately. Generally, therefore, any forest

produce and the tools, boats, vehicles, cattles, etc., used

in the commission of the forest offence, which are liable to

forfeiture, should not be released. This, however, does not

debar the officers and the authorities under the Act

including the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders

under the circumstances of each case but only after

assigning valid reasons. The liberal approach in the matter

would perpetuate the commission of more offences with

respect to the forest and its produce which, if not

protected, is surely to affect the mother-earth and the

atmosphere surrounding it. 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.

The approach adopted both by the Authorised Officer and

the High Court completely ignores the importance of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

forests and the purpose of the object for which the Act was

made. As the appellant-State has not prayed for quashing

the order of the Authorised Officer we refrain to deal with

that even though we do not approve it. We are, however,

satisfied that the High Court had adopted a very casual

approach while disposing of the petition under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides that the order

impugned is contrary to law, we have our reservations with

respect to the powers of the High Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. in the matter which we do not express in this case.

Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the

order impugned, passed by the High Court is set aside.