1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 306/1996

Saifi Kurban Hussein Bohari, Age : 35 years,

Occu. Trade R/o Taloda Tq. Taloda, Dist.

Dhule.

...Petitioner.

Versus

1

The State of Maharashtra, through Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of

Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.

2

Vasudeo Vishramani Kulmethe, Jt.

Vanasanrakshak (Society), Uttar Dhule.

..Respondents.

Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent

No.1/State.

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J

Date : 30^th September, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1

Heard.

This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and

order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar dated

18/04/1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 7/1991 dismissing the appeal filed by

the present applicant. The applicant was owner of certain vehicle. This

vehicle was used for transportation of 128 logs of teak wood, from a

protected forest illegally. The vehicle and the persons carrying the logs

were intercepted on 30/09/1986 and the vehicle in question was seized

under the provisions of Section 62 of Indian Foreign Act. The applicant

was given notice to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be

confiscated. The Range Forest Officer, Shahada passed the order

confiscating the vehicle under Section 61-A (3) of the Indian Forest Act.

2

2

As against this, the applicant went in appeal before the Additional

Sessions Judge, at Nandurbar under Section 61-D of the Indian Forest

Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the order of confiscating the vehicle. During the pendency of

these proceedings, the vehicle in question was released on the applicants’

executing a bond of Rs.75,000/- and on furnishing a surety in the like

amount. After the appeal was dismissed, the applicant was directed to

produce the vehicle. After this order was passed, the present revision was

filed in 1996 and an order of stay to the execution of the order was

obtained. With the result, the vehicle on one hand remained in use of the

applicant and on the other hand, the order of confiscation of the vehicle

remained in abeyance.

3

Having gone through the orders below, I find no illegality committed

by the Court below while passing such orders. The Court below rightly

came to a conclusion that the logs of teak wood were illegally cut from the

forest area and were being transported out of the forest area. As I was

about the dismiss the criminal revision application, I asked the learned

Advocate appearing for the applicant as to whether after so many years,

his client would be in a position to produce vehicle in question. I thought by

this time, the vehicle in question would have been destroyed or would

have been rendered useless. As expected, the learned Advocate

appearing for the applicant confessed that during last 14 years, the vehicle

got destroyed. He said, when it was kept aside for repairs, its vital parts

were stolen away and subsequently her client was required to sell the

remains of the vehicle as scrap to meet the expenses for urgent family

needs. This information is given to the Court on instructions. In view of

this and in view of the pendency of the Criminal revision application for

such long time, it is rather unjustifiable to ask the applicant to deposit the

bond amount of Rs.75,000/- instead of producing the vehicle. Instead of, it

would be appropriate if the amount of bond is reduced and the applicant is

directed to pay a smaller amount.

3

ORDER

The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

However, the amount of bond is reduced to Rs.

25,000/- and the petitioner shall deposit said amount

in the lower appellate Court, on or before 22^nd

November, 2010.

A.V. NIRGUDE, J.

ts k/ok