1. The petitioners are aggrieved with the refusal to release vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-40A-7027 and the timber transported, pursuant to which detention & seizure, O.R. No.4 of 2017 of Forest Range Office, Mankulam was registered. The vehicle and the timber were seized on 20.03.2017 as is evidenced from Ext.P5 Mahazar. Ext.P5 indicates that when the vehicle was sought to be detained, the driver stopped the vehicle and ran out, who could not be apprehended, even though chased. The Forest Officials on further inspection of the vehicle found that it contained timber logs, which transport was not supported by any documents. Hence a crime was registered as O.R. No.4 of 2017 and the vehicles were seized.

2. The vehicle belongs to the 2nd petitioner and the logs were cut from the property of the 1st petitioner, which did not require any sanction from the Forest authorities, contend petitioners. It is also submitted that Ext.P3 Certificate issued by the Village Officer on the very next day specifically indicates that the logs were cut from the property of the petitioner, wherein the stumps were detected as seen from the Certificate issued by the Village Officer.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on John v. Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam [1996 (2) KLT 984] and Shihab etc. v. State of Kerala and Another [2016 (4) KHC 183] to argue for release of the vehicle and logs to the custody of the petitioner on a bond as stipulated in Section 53 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no notice issued with respect to confiscation and there is no reason why the vehicle and logs be kept in the custody of the Forest Officials pending confiscation proceedings, especially when the petitioner is willing to execute a bond for production of the same whenever it is sought for. The confiscation proceedings also have not been initiated till date maintain the petitioners.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader [Forest] relies on State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan [2000 KHC 1315] and Section Forestor v. Mansur Ali Khan [2004 KHC 293] to contend that release of a vehicle cannot be for the asking especially when the offense alleged is under the Forest Act. The claim for release in the instant case is also not covered by Section 53 and would be regulated by Section 61A of the Act of 1961.

5. The petitioner has placed substantial reliance on Shihab [supra] in which Section 53 was interpreted to find that release of the vehicle can be made on bond executed by the registered owner. The said case was one in which a crime was registered and a release was sought for from the jurisdictional Magistrate, who imposed a condition of cash security for interim release. The claimant took an unsuccessful appeal before the High Court, and eventually moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reading Section 53; it was held that the release can be made on a bond being executed as provided therein. That was a case of transportation of sand; in which confiscation of goods and vehicle could have been done only by the Magistrate, on a conviction entered as per Section 55 of the Act of 1961.

6. In the present case the offense relates to timber, which is covered by Section 61A, as has been argued by the learned Special Government Pleader. Section 61A culls out timber, charcoal, fire wood and ivory from the other provisions in the Chapter and by a non-obstante clause, provides a parallel proceeding for confiscation by the Authorised Officer, being a person not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests. It is also pertinent that Section 61A proceedings does not depend upon a conviction entered by the Magistrate. Even if no prosecution is instituted for the commission of such forest offense, confiscation can be proceeded with by the Authorised Officer seizing any forest produce, being timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory or any tools, vehicles etc used in the commission of such offenc