The legality of the seizure of the vehicle under the Kerala Forest Act and the requirement of simultaneous seizure of contraband articles were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

The seizure of petitioner's vehicle by the 2nd respondent is under challenge in this Writ Petition. It is stated that a Maruti Alto car bearing Reg.No.KL-50H/8824 owned by the petitioner, who is a teacher, was seized by the forest officials on the basis of a confession statement of petitioner's husband, recorded by the Forest Range Officer – the 2nd respondent, that her car was used for removal of sandal wood pieces from the forest. It is stated that on 21.07.2020, the 2nd respondent along with certain other forest officials intercepted a motorbike and registered O.R.No.21/2020 against 3 persons alleging that they were transporting sandalwood pieces on their motor bike. On the basis of their confession statement, petitioner's husband was also made an accused. Petitioner's car was seized thereafter based on the confession statement of her husband submitted before the Forest Range Officer. It is stated that though the petitioner filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of the vehicle, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad rejected the application as per Ext.P4 order on 15.09.2020 on the ground that the car was already produced before the authorised officer for confiscation under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act. It is stated that the petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No.4511/2020 challenging Ext.P4 order. Though this Court dismissed the Cr.M.C as per Ext.P5 order, on a finding that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C will not lie for releasing a vehicle, the petitioner claims that this Court had arrived at a finding that seizure of a vehicle as envisaged under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act should have been along with the contraband articles and that the seizure of vehicle and articles should have been simultaneous. Therefore, it is the claim of the petitioner that the seizure of her vehicle by the Forest Range Officer was without any authority for the same, in the light of the findings in Ext.P4 order of this Court. Relying on the judgment in Luca Beltrami v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KLT 24], it is also argued that the recording of confessional statement by the Forest Range Officer was also without any authority. The Writ Petition is filed in the above background seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-50H/8824 to the petitioner forthwith;

(ii) Declare that the seizure of the vehicle belonged to the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-50H/8824, under Section 52 of the Forest Act, and the consequent proceedings initiated against it under Section 61A of the Forest Act are perse illegal, and without jurisdiction;

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. According to the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition on 07.12.2020 suppressing the confiscation proceedings initiated as per Annexure R1(a) notice dated 12.10.2020 and culminated in Annexure R1(b) order issued on 25.11.2020. It is stated that the vehicle was seized under Section 52 r/w Section 47H of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and the 2nd respondent produced the same before the authorised officer to proceed under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act. The authorised officer thereafter issued Annexure R1(a) notice dated 12.10.2020 under Section 61(B) to the petitioner, who is the R.C owner of the vehicle affording her an opportunity to file her reply on or before 31.10.2020 and fixing the date for personal hearing on 30.10.2020. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted her reply on 30.10.2020. But since the reply was not satisfactory, the vehicle was confiscated as per Annexure R1(b) order on 25.11.2020. It is stated that the petitioner ought to have filed appeal under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act before the District Court in case she was aggri