The failure to report the seizure to the Magistrate did not restrict the Forest Officer from proceeding with confiscation proceedings under Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

Question that has come up for consideration is whether second respondent is disabled from proceeding with Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, if there is failure on the part of the Authorised Officer in reporting the seizure to the Magistrate in accordance with Section 52(2) of the Act.

2. Idukki Flying Squad Range Officer got information of illegal transportation of forest produce from the Cardamom Hill Reserve near Kizhakke Mattukada. The Range Officer and his staff intercepted Jeep bearing registration No. KL-6-1511/ carrying Choorapathri timber on 10-11-1997. Timber seized did not bear any Government stamp mark or any private property mark. As soon as the jeep was intercepted, driver and certain persons, who were in the jeep, escaped and they could not be apprehended. Vehicle and the timber logs were seized and the matter was reported by the Officer to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam, vide his letter dated 11-11-1997, along with the mahazar dated 10-11-1997, to take further action under Section 61-A of the Forest Act. Copy of the letter was also forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad, Idukki, as well as to the Forest Range Officer, Kumily. Jeep and the timber were kept in safe custody at the office of the Ayyappancoil Range.

3. The department was unaware of the whereabouts of the registered owner, and no person came forward to claim the vehicle. Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam, then sent a letter No. A2/10726/97 dated 12-11-1997 to the Regional Transport Officer, Idukki for ascertaining the details of the registered owner. Regional Transport Officer, Idukki vide his letter dated 16-12-1997 directed the second respondent to contact the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Vandiperiyar. Copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Vandiperiyar. The Joint Regional Transport Officer, Vandiperiyar vide his letter dated 13-1-1998 informed the second respondent that the registered owner of the vehicle is one M. A. Ravindran, as per the records kept in that office.

4. Second respondent later wrote to the Range Officer, Kumily directing him to submit a report with regard to seizure for taking further action in the matter. Forest Range Officer, Kumily then sent his report dated 22-4-1999 to the second respondent so as to take further action under Section 61-A of the Act, and the proceedings are underway.

5. Second respondent in the meantime received a letter dated 12-3-1999 from the petitioner claiming ownership and possession of the vehicle and sought release of the vehicle. According to him, the vehicle was seized from his possession on 10-11-1997, and that he had not committed any forest offence. According to him, the seizure of the vehicle was illegal and the department is unauthorisedly keeping the vehicle without reporting the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Petitioner claimed ownership on the basis of an agreement dated 25-2-1995 stated to be executed by the registered owner.

6. Petitioner then filed O.P. No. 8819 of 1999 seeking a direction to the second respondent to dispose of his petition dated 12-3-1999. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the second respondent to pass orders on the said representation. Second respondent has now issued Ext. P-6 order dated 29-4-1999 stating that vehicle could be released only after getting information from the registered owner. Petitioner then sent a letter dated 4-5-1999 purported to have been issued by the registered owner for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. Since no action has been taken by the second respondent to release the vehicle, petitioner has approached this Court.

7. I heard counsel on either side. Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents ought to have released the vehicle since the petitioner was the owner and was in possession of the vehicle. Counsel relied on Ext. P-7 letter dated 4-5-1999 purported to have been written by th