( 1 ) THE respondent herein B. G. Shivananda is. said to be the registered owner of an Ambassador Car bearing No. MYQ 8646. On 4-5-1977 at about 3 A. M. , Thyamagondlu Police seized the said car presumably acting under sub-sec (1) of S. 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground that it was being used for committing offences under Sec. 379 IPC read with Sec. 86 of the Act, and registered a case in Crime No. 26 77 and reported the fact of seizure to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Dist, presumably acting under sub-sec (3) of S. 62 of the Act. Thereupon the respondent. on 10-5-1977 filed an application under Sec. 451 of the Crlpc 1973, before the said magistrate requesting him to- release the car and hand it over to him. The APP however resisted that application and inter alia contended that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to make the order sought for and that in -view of the provisions of S. 71a of the Act (inserted by the Karnataka Forest (Second Amendment) Act 1976), it is the authorised officer referred to therein who can make an order of that kind; the argument submitted in support of that contention was that Section 71a of the Act empowers the authorised officer referred to therein to order confiscation of the property seized under S. 62 (l) of the Act and therefore it is that authorised officer who can make an interim order regarding the custody of the car in question, and not the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, however, repelled that contention and observed thus:"there is nothing in the provisions of S. 71 (A) to S. 71 (F) which have been added by virtue of the Karnataka Forest. (Second Amendment) act 1976, relates to the interim custody of vehicle seized by the Police. The offence alleged in this case is one punishable under s. 379 IPC r|w S. 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act. Though S. 7 (A) gives the power of confiscation of the vehicle used in the commission of a forest offence to the officer authorised by the State Govt under the provisions of S. 71 (A), there is no provision found in the entire scheme of S. 71 (A) to S. 71 (F) by which interim custody of a vehicle seized by the police can be given or has to be given by such authorised officer and ousting the jurisdiction of a criminal court. In my opinion, there is considerable force in the contention urged on the side of the petitioner that even though S. 71 (A) of the forest Act provides that the power to confiscate vests with the authorised officer appointed by the State Govt, the powers of this court to grant interim custody of the vehicle seized by the Police vests with this Court and has not been fettered in any manner or ousted by any of the provisions of Ss. 71 (A), to 71 (F) of the Forest act. I am of the opinion that there is no impediment to pass an order regarding the interim custody of the Vehicle seized, that is the car seized in this case, by this Court subject to certain conditions that have to be imposed to safeguard the interest of the State. "in the view he took he allowed the application of the respondent, by his order dt. 24-9-1977 the operative portion of which reads :"for the above reasons, I allow this application. The Car MYQ 8646 is given to the interim custody of the petitioner B. G. Shivananda on condition that he shall execute an indemnity bond for a surn of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with one surety in like sum and on further condition that he shall not change the colour or the structure of the car in any manner until the disposal of the case and shall produce the car before the police as well as before the court whenever called upon and he shall not dispose of the said car till the disposal of the case. "it is the legality of the said order that is assailed in this petition by the state.

( 2 ) IT was mainly contended that the provisions of S. 71a of the Act override the general provisions contained in S. 451 Crlpc and hence the learned Magistrate was in error in making t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document