A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 9-5-2014 passed by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Mangalore Division and the order dated 30-10-2014 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2014 which are impugned at Annexures-F and H to the petition. The petitioner is the registered owner of the Eicher Canter Lorry bearing No. KA-04 D 1265. The petitioner claims that in addition to the said vehicle, he owns few other vehicles and is running a transport business in the name and style of "Mayur Transport". The vehicle in question was purchased by the petitioner on 20-11-2011 for Rs. 8,00,000/- by raising loan from the India Bulls Financial Services and was paying EMI of Rs. 23,837/-. During the course of his business, he was transporting goods to Max Hyper Market, Mangalore. On the return journey, his driver Harish G. on 3-9-2013 had allowed certain unauthorised persons to board the vehicle and allowed their goods to be carried as the lorry was coming back from Mangalore to Bengaluru after unloading the goods at Mangalore. It is only when the Forest official intercepted the vehicle, the driver came to know that the persons who had engaged the vehicle had allegedly loaded some forest produce. In any event, the case in that regard has been registered and the proceedings under Section 71-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is before the Authorised Officer.

2. In the pending proceedings, the petitioner herein being the owner of the vehicle which had been seized, made an application seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. The application was rejected by the Authorised Officer by the impugned order dated 9-5-2014. The said order was assailed before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2014. The Court below though had taken note of the contention put forth by the petitioner was of the view that no documents had been produced to establish the fact that a loan had been obtained by the petitioner to purchase the vehicle and in that view, the order passed by the Authorised Officer was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration for providing an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the documents before the Authorised Officer. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would refer to the petition papers to contend that even as per the documents made available, the fact that the petitioner had obtained loan to purchase the vehicle is evident. It is contended that even otherwise, the petitioner is a Transport Contractor and it is due to inadvertence of his driver, certain other persons have made use of the vehicle and these aspects in any event would be established before the Authorised Officer in the said pending proceedings. It is contended that in the meanwhile, if the vehicle is allowed to remain in the custody of the Authorised Officer, the same would deteriorate and as such, the vehicle be released to the petitioner. Further the loan is to be discharged despite the vehicle remaining idle.

4. Learned Government Advocate would however contend that the documents produced to establish that a loan had been obtained could still be produced before the Authorised Officer as the Court below has remitted the matter for the said purpose and as such, the consideration need not be made in this petition. It is his further contention that in any event, when a vehicle has been seized for committing a forest offence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Courts should be slow in releasing the vehicle.

5. Having noticed the rival contentions, there can be no serious dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle concerned. From the documents produced at Annexure-A, it is seen that the vehicle was hypothecated to India Bulls Financial Services Limited. Further, the petiti