The petitioner/State has preferred the subject petition calling

in question order dated 31-12-2020 by which the IV Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Bhadravathi set

aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer under the

Karnataka Forest Act confiscating Tata Ace vehicle of the

respondent in Criminal Appeal No.5013 of 2020.

2. Heard Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the petitioner/State.

3. Sans details, facts in brief are as follows:-

3

On 26-01-2018, it is the case of the petitioner, that credible

information was received by the Range Forest Officer, Lingadahalli

Range that illegal transportation of Rose and Teak Wood logs was

taking place in the vehicles. Examination of the vehicles was

conducted on the Hulithimmapura – Lingadahalli Road, and a Tata

Ace Mega LGV vehicle was intercepted and on examination it was

found that the lorry was carrying rose and teak wood logs. In that

connection, two persons were apprehended, logs along with the

vehicle were seized and a crime comes to be registered for offences

punishable under Sections 24, 50, 62, 71A to 71G, 80, 104A of the

Karnataka Forest Act and Rules 144 and 165 of the Karnataka

Forest Rules.

4. The owner of the vehicle filed a claim before the Authorised

Officer contending that he was not aware of what was transported

in the vehicle and therefore sought interim custody of the vehicle.

This is rejected by the Authorised Officer on 25.06.2020. Being

aggrieved by the same, the owner of the vehicle files a criminal

appeal in Criminal Appeal No.5013 of 2020 before the learned

Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge allows the appeal filed

4

by the owner, set aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer

and directs to hold an inquiry under Section 71A of the Karnataka

Forest Act only after final disposal of the main case registered

against respondent and others. It is against the said order, the

State Government has preferred the subject petition.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend

that the Appellate Court has grossly erred in not appreciating

various grounds on which the Authorised Officer had rejected the

claim of the owner. It is further contended that the Appellate Court

has lost sight of Section 71B which specifically casts an obligation

upon the owner of the vehicle to prove that the offence was

committed without his knowledge and seeks interference at the

hands of this Court.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused

the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What drives

the State to this Court in the subject petition is the order passed by

5

the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge directs

release of the vehicle in favour of the owner holding that the inquiry

should be proceeded under Section 71A of the Forest Act only after

final disposal of the prosecution case registered against the

respondent/appellant. The reasons so rendered by the learned

Sessions Judge are as follows:

“….

….

….

14. Sec. 62(1) and (2) of Karnataka Forest Act reads

thus:

(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest

offence has been committed including the forest produce

and vehicle used to commit the offence, may be seized by

any Forest Officer or police officer.

(2) Any Forest Officer or Police Officer may, if he has

reason to believe that a vehicle has been or is being used for

the transport of forest produce in respect of which there is

reason to believe a forest offence has been or is being

committed, require the driver or other person in charge of

such vehicle to stop the vehicle and cause it to remain

stationary as long as may reasonably be necessary to

examine the contents in the vehicle and inspect all records

relating to the goods carried which are in the possession of

such driver or other person in charge of the vehicle.

Sec. 63(3) of