The Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to release a confiscated vehicle on supratnama, but such release should only be done in the rarest of rare cases.

V.A. Mohta, J.:- By this criminal writ petition, the State of Maharashtra, the Conservator of Forest and the Assistant Conservator of Forest have jointly challenged the judicial order dated 25-1-1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in an appeal under S. 61 D of the Forest Act (the Act) releasing on supratnama motor vehicle confiscated under S. 61-A of the Act.

2. The basic factual background is this: The Maruti car being registration No. MTV 2974 was carrying teak wood from Patur to Akola. There was an unsuccessful attempt by the police officers to intercept the vehicle on the way. The vehicle was, therefore, chased and forced to stop. 89 pieces of cut teak wood unauthorisedly cut Government forest produce - were found inside the vehicle which was being driven by the regularly employed driver of the owner of the vehicle the respondent. The driver stated that he merely obeyed the order of his master. A show-cause notice under S. 61-B of the Act was issued to the driver as well as the owner as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated under S. 61-A. The driver did not give any additional statement. The respondent stated that she had instructed the driver to take the car to Patur for carrying a patient from Main Hospital, Akola, and that she had no knowledge of what the driver did.

3. The Assistant Conservator of Forest (petitioner No. 3) after making enquiry ordered confiscation of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, revision before the Conservator of Forest (petitioner No. 2) was preferred by the respondent under S. 61-C of the Act, but without any success. Thereafter, an appeal under S. 61-D was filed before the Sessions Judge, which is still pending. In that appeal, the respondent filed an application for releasing the vehicle on her supratnama, which has been allowed and the said order is challenged in the petition inter alia on the ground of want of jurisdiction to pass such order in view of S. 61-C of the Act.

4. With the assistance of Shri Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioners, and Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondent, we have gone through the record and examined the relevant provisions.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the grounds that (i) since the petitioners 2 and 3 had passed quasi-judicial orders of confiscation, they had no locus standi to file the petition, (ii) there is no-joinder of the Sessions Judge as a co-respondent. We do not see any substance in the preliminary objections. The State Government is the petitioner No. 1. There is no dispute about its locus standi to challenge the adverse order passed by the Sessions Judge. If that be the correct position, the petition does not become non-maintainable only because few more parties, have joined as co-petitioners.

6. Considering the whole background including the nature of challenges raised, there can be no manner of doubt that in truth and substance this is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution in which judicial order passed in a statutory appeal is impugned. The Sessions Judge, therefore, is not a party without whom no order can be made effectively in this petition. Hence, we do not think he was a necessary party whose absence alone should entail dismissal of the petition. Such a view would be too hyper technical in this particular case.

7. A single Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. Pushpan, 1983 Ker LT 951 has been relied upon in support of the preliminary objections. We do not think that ratio of that decision will have application to the case at hand. That was a decision upon a petition under Art. 226 filed by the Divisional Forest Officer and not by a State. Moreover, the question about real nature of the challenge and not the form being decisive in the matter, was neither raised nor considered in that decision. As far as this Court is concerne