1. Seizure of vehicle for transporting forest produce without permit under Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 — Application for interim release. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1354
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
State Of Karnataka
Versus
K.Krishnan
Case No. : 668 of 2000
Date of Decision : 8/17/00
Advocates Appeared: Ganapathy N. : Middha N.P.
Important Points
Vehicles seized for forest offenses should not normally be released until proceedings conclude. If released exceptionally, a bank guarantee is the minimum required condition to deter offenders and preserve the objective of protecting forests.
Subject
Environmental Law - Forest Laws
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 - Sections 2(7), 62, 71-A and 71-G - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Seizure of vehicle for transporting forest produce without permit - Release of seized property - Conditions for interim custody - High Court modified order of Authorised Officer, replacing bank guarantee with two solvent sureties - Liberal approach in releasing property liable for confiscation would frustrate the object of the Act - Forests are natural wealth and protectors of human life - Vehicles used for forest offenses should not normally be returned until proceedings conclude - If released for exceptional reasons, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition - Easier terms would tempt offenders to repeat crimes. (Paras 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
A jeep and a lorry were seized for transporting forest produce without a permit in violation of the Forest Act. The Authorised Officer released the jeep on interim custody subject to a bank guarantee and other conditions. The High Court, in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, modified the order by replacing the bank guarantee requirement with two solvent sureties.
Findings of Court:
The High Court adopted a casual approach and ignored the importance of forests and the purpose of the Act. The order replacing the bank guarantee with sureties was contrary to law and undermined the statutory objective of protecting forest produce.
Issues: Whether the requirement of a bank guarantee for the interim release of a vehicle seized for forest offenses could be replaced by solvent sureties under the objective of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions of the Forest Act must be strictly followed to preserve and protect forests. A liberal approach to releasing property liable for confiscation undermines the Act's purpose. To deter offenders and protect the environment, a bank guarantee must be the minimum condition for the interim release of any vehicle involved in a forest offense.
Result: Appeal allowed and the order impugned, passed by the High Court is set aside.
Facts of the case:
A jeep and a lorry were seized for transporting forest produce without a permit in violation of the Forest Act. The Authorised Officer released the jeep on interim custody subject to a bank guarantee and other conditions. The High Court, in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, modified the order by replacing the bank guarantee requirement with two solvent sureties.
Findings of Court:
The High Court adopted a casual approach and ignored the importance of forests and the purpose of the Act. The order replacing the bank guarantee with sureties was contrary to law and undermined the statutory objective of protecting forest produce.
Issues: Whether the requirement of a bank guarantee for the interim release of a vehicle seized for forest offenses could be replaced by solvent sureties under the objective of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions of the Forest Act must be strictly followed to preserve and protect forests. A liberal approach to releasing property liable for confiscation undermines the Act's purpose. To deter offenders and protect the environment, a bank guarantee must be the minimum condition for the interim release of any vehicle involved in a forest offense.
Result: Appeal allowed and the order impugned, passed by the High Court is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
-
interim custody and release of property
-
conditions for release of seized vehicles
- bank guarantee requirement (Para 7)
-
conditions for release of seized vehicles
-
powers of high court
- inherent powers under section 482 criminal procedure code (Para 8)
-
statutory interpretation
-
interpretation of penal and regulatory statutes
- strict construction of forest laws (Para 7)
-
interpretation of penal and regulatory statutes
-
interim custody and release of property
Table of Contents
2. State argued strict compliance with Act; respondent sought unconditional release of seized vehicle. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 )
3. Courts must avoid liberal approach in releasing property liable to confiscation under forest laws. (Para 7 )
4. Vehicles seized for forest offences should not normally be returned until proceedings culminate; bank guarantee is minimum if released. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order setting aside bank guarantee condition and granting release on sureties is set aside. (Para 8 )
6. What standard should courts apply when releasing vehicles seized for forest offences?
Vehicles should not normally be returned until all proceedings conclude; if released, a bank guarantee is the minimum condition. (Para 7 )
7. Can a liberal approach in releasing seized property frustrate the object of a Forest Act?
Yes, a liberal approach is uncalled for as it is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act and perpetuate more forest offences. (Para 7 )
8. What is the proper approach for appellate courts reviewing interim release orders under forest laws?
Courts must assign valid reasons justifying release, prima facie excluding the possibility of ultimate confiscation of the property. (Para 7 )
R.P. Sethi, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) 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 Sec. 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. 85,000.00 from a scheduled bank which shall be renewable from lime 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."
(3) NOT satisfied with the aforesaid order, the respondent herein filed a petition under Sec. 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. 1,50,000.00 each for the purpose of getting the interim custody of the jeep.
(4) FEELING aggrieved, the State of Karnataka has filed this appeal by special leave.
(5) THE Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to forests and forest 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- sec. (7) of Sec. 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, caoutchouc, catechu, sandalwood lootikai (Capparis Mooni), wood oil, sandalwood oil resin, rubber latex, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua or ippe (Bassialtifolia) flowers and seeds, seed of Prosopis, juliflora, kuth, and tembumi or tupra (Diospyros-Melanoxylon) leaves, rosha, (Tenninalia 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
