State of
Karnataka V. K. Krishnan [2000] INSC 434 (17 August 2000)
K.T.
Thomas & R.P. Sethi.
SETHI,J.
L.I.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 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 amend the law relating to forests and forests produce in
the State of Karnataka with the main
object of preserving and 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 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 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.
Back
