Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 349 (KAR)

RANGE FOREST OFFICER v. KASTURILAL

1987-10-27

D.R.VITHAL RAO

body1987
D. R. VITHEL RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. by the State is directed against the order dated 13/8/1907, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chickmagalor in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1986 setting aside the order made by the Authorised Officer and the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Koppa Division, Koppa in Case No. FOC/55/83-84, on his file and directing release of the vehicle bearing Registration No. MYT. 5698 to the owner of the vehicle i. e. , the respondent. ( 2 ) THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows: The Range Forest Officer, Kappa, while he was on petrol duty at about 2-30 A. M, on 29-3-1984 on Balehonnur and Jaipura Main Road on suspicion signalled a lorry bearing Registration No. MYT 5698 coming on the said road to stop it. The vehicle was not stopped. It proceeded, further. The Forest Officer chased it and forced it to stop near Herur Society Building. The occupants in the said lorry immediately after the lorry was stopped ran away from there except e person by name Afzal. The Forest Officer checked the said lorry and found it loaded with J 48 sandalwood billets, weighing about 3,450 K. Gs. , valued at about Rs. 3,00,000/ -. The Forest Officer seized the said lorry and the contents i. e. , the sandalwood billets under a mallazar and produced the same before the Authorised Officer and the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Koppa Division, Koppa, for initiating action under the provisions of Section 70-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Act for short ). ( 3 ) THE Authorised Officer, issued notices under Section 71. B of the Act to the Registered, owner- Respondent herein and after inquiry passed an order confiscating the lorry seized. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1986, challenging the said order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the material on record held that the prosecution did not place sufficient material on record to satisfy that a forest offence was committed in respect of the property seized and in that view, set aside the order of confiscation made by the Authorised Officer and directed delivery of the vehicle seized in favour of Respondent No. 1 - the Registered Owner of the vehicle. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the State has filed this petition. ( 6 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, was not justified in setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer as there was sufficient material placed on record to satisfy that a forest offence in respect of the property seized was committed. The learned Counsel further submitted that there was abundant material to satisfy this requirement in the evidence of the Secretary of the Tribal Welfare Society; Iraswamy and seizing forest officers and therefore, the order made by the learned Sessions Judge was erroneous and unsustainable. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for respondent, argued supporting the order made by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 8 ) THE records were caned for and received. ( 9 ) THE records show that the Authorised Officer recorded the statements of 3 Range Forest Officers i. e. , P. W. 1 C. M. Syed Budan, P. W. 2 M. Ismail and another Ranges Forest Officer Syed Gaffar. He has also recorded the statement of Forest Guard P. W. 3 S. Balachandra. Though the recording of the statements of these witnesses made by the Authorised Officer is not in accordance with law but even then this material which has come on record in the statement of these witnesses does not show that the lorry and the sandalwood billets found in the said lorry were seized in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 of the Act; because none of these witnesses have stated that the Forest produce and the vehicle in which it was contained at the time of its seizure was marked as required under sub-section (3) of Section 62 of the Act. The material on record does not show that the billets seized was proved to be the sandalwood billets. Even the material seized was not identified by any of these witnesses as the property seized by them. ( 10 ) THE statement of P. W. 1 shows that a copy of the mallazar under which the vehicle and its contents were seized was produced before the Authorised Officer and not the original mallazer and the said copy was marked as Ext. P. 1. ( 10 ) THE statement of P. W. 1 shows that a copy of the mallazar under which the vehicle and its contents were seized was produced before the Authorised Officer and not the original mallazer and the said copy was marked as Ext. P. 1. ( 11 ) THE fact that the seizure was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 of the Act and neither the mallazar under which it was produced before the Authorised Officer nor the articles that were seized alleged to be the sandalwood billets were identified by any of the seizing officers, are the material infirmities in the case. ( 12 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the statement of the Secretary of the Tribal Welfare Society and Iraswamy would satisfy the requirement under law that a forest offence was committed in respect of the property seized. ( 13 ) THOUGH the statement of the Secretary of the Tribal Welfare Society is not in fact a statement recorded by the Authorised Officer. It is in the shape of an application given by the Secretary on 22/4/1985. Even the recitals contained in such an application also would not support the case of the prosecution, as the statement of the Secretary would show that he was speaking to a seizure alleged to have been made on 29/3/1985. ( 14 ) THE statement of Iraswamy as well, is in the shape of an application dated 28-5-1984. There is no material on record to show that this was recorded by the Authorised Officer in the presence of Respondent No. 1. Therefore, even this material would not help the prosecution to satisfy the requirements under Sub-section (2) of Section 71-A of the Act. ( 15 ) THE learned Sessions Judge while considering this material at Para-,-8 of his judgement observed as under: 8. The learned Authorised Officer bas on the statement of the Secretary of Tribal Society and one Eraswamy, has come to the conclusion that it establishes the connivance of the owner of the vehicle. It appears to me that this conclusion is not borne out by the evidence of these witnesses as it in no way indicates either collusion or connivance of the registered owner or that it was done with his knowledge. It appears to me that this conclusion is not borne out by the evidence of these witnesses as it in no way indicates either collusion or connivance of the registered owner or that it was done with his knowledge. In the circumstances the learned Authorised Officer was in error as no such inference of connivance or collusion by the registered owner could be drawn on the above evidence on the principles laid down in the above mentioned decision. On an examination of the facts and circumstances, the order of confiscation passed by the learned Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests cannot therefore, be supported in law and is liable to be set aside. ( 16 ) HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order made by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer with any infirmity. There are absolutely no reasons for this Court to interfere in this finding of fact recorded by the learned Se8sions Judge. ( 17 ) IN the result, therefore, this petition fails and it is dismissed. Revision dismissed