Confiscation proceedings under the Forest Act are independent of criminal prosecution; an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically entitle an owner to the release of vehicles if the authorities established the vehicles were used for the illegal transport of forest produce.

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, IN A3/71/PCR-270/2015-16.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government pleader.

2. Revision Petitioner is the applicant who approached the Competent Authority namely Authorized officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, Shivamogga division for release of the following vehicles :

(i) Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing No.KA-14/P-2181

(ii) Hyundai i-20 Car bearing No.KA-14/P-4100.

(iii) Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No.KA 14/EG-7007 and

(iv) Hero Honda Passion Pro Bike Bearing No.KA-14, EE-4862.

which was registered in number A3/71/PCR-270/2015 and 2016.

3. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, passed an order on 17.02.2022 rejecting the application.

4. Revision petitioner being aggrieved by the said rejection, filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.30/2022 under Section 71-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

5. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Competent Authority.

6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after taking into consideration rival contention of the parties, allowed the appeal in part and released the two wheeler Honda Activa bearing No.KA-14/EG-7007 and Hero Honda Passion Pro Bike Bearing No.KA-14, EE-4862 inter-alia holding in paragraphs No.11 to 14 as under ;

11. Now coming to the present set of facts, PW.1 and PW.4 have categorically deposed before the respondent No.1 about the incident and seizure of sandal wood billets from the above two vehicles. It is well settled law that, presumption of honest is applicable even to the police officers. In this regard, in the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Sunil and another (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein at para No.21, it is observed as under:

"We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally