ORDER

10.3.2004 — Heard Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a Tractor bearing Regis¬tration No. CP-19-7411 and Trailor bearing Registration No. OR-19-7412. The said Tractor and Trailor were seized by the Police at Rantali in Angul Town while it was carrying some wooden articles namely, doors and windows. The petitioner moved the learned S.D.J.M., Angul under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the seized articles, but the learned S.D.J.M. passed orders refusing to release the said seized arti¬cles in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner moved this Court in CRLMC No. 2488 of 2003 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but this Court directed the petitioner to file an application under Section 57 of the Orissa Forest Act for interim release of the vehicle. The petitioner filed an applica¬tion before the Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O., Angul Division, for interim release of the Tractor and Trailor, but by order dated 30.12.2003 the Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O., Angul Divi¬sion, rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 57 of the Orissa Forest Act on the ground that the said Section 57 of the Orissa Forest Act has been omitted from the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, by the Orissa Forest Amendment Act, 2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for release of the said vehicles.

3. In the impugned order dated 30.12.2003, the Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O., Angul Division has also cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Karnatak-Vrs-K. Krishnan in J.T. 2000(9) S.C. 356 wherein it has been held that :

“This Court cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obliga¬tions indicated in the Act enacted for the purpose of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life providing a clear and unpolluted atmosphere. We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence. The same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmina¬tion of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any excep¬tional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come.”

4. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been quoted in the case of Section Forester and another Vrs. Mansur Ali Khan in (2004) 27 OCR (SC) 368 and it has been held therein that it is only in exceptional case that High Court can grant interim release of a vehicle alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence and that too on the minimum condi¬tion of furnishing of bank guarantee by the party concerned.

5. In the present case, the exceptional circumstance is that the wooden articles seized were all finished doors and wind¬ows as stated in the seizure list filed by the police before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Angul in C.T. No. 1974 of 2003, copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3. The said wooden articles were also not seized in any forest area but were seized from Angul town and the petitioner has stated in writ petition that the wooden articles had been pur¬chased by her husband and were being transported in the vehicle of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances of the case, we direct for release of