ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner applicant to set aside the order dated 13.1.2020 passed by Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, Virajpet Division, Virajpet, in Crime No.66/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 71(A) to (G) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ for short). 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The gist of the case is that on 16.6.2019 at about 4.00 a.m. on credible information while the Forest Authorities were on patrolling duty came to know that some logs were being transported in a lorry and when they came near at about 5.30 a.m. the lorry was proceeding and there was also a Swaraj Mazda vehicle. When they stopped the lorry, the person who was traveling in Swaraj Mazda vehicle also came and identified and he produced certain documents by saying that said lorry belongs to him and he is transporting coffee and he produced a bill. They suspected and searched the lorry and found that jackfruit tree logs were being illegally transported in the said lorry. The Lorry, Swaraj Mazda vehicle, and other vehicles have also been seized. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 71(A) of the Act to release Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing Registration No.KA.12A3322. The said application has been objected to and thereafter by the impugned order the said application came to be rejected. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the RC Owner and the said vehicle stands in his name and it has not been used for commission of the offence. Even though the said documents have been produced, the Authorized Officer without application of mind has rejected the said application. It is his further submission that said vehicle is very much necessary for personal use and if the same is allowed to be lying in the forest office, it may get rusted and subsequently it may not be fit for personal use. It is his further submission that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition. 5. It is his further submission that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the said Swaraj Mazda vehicle, Lorry and other vehicles have been seized while the said offence has been committed. It is his further submission that when the said vehicles have been seized under the Forest Act, there is a provision of Confiscation. Under such circumstances, the release of the vehicle is not advisable. It is his further submission that the Swaraj Mazda vehicle was proceeding in front of the lorry and the applicant was proceeding in the said vehicle and when the lorry was stopped he came and identified the lorry and he has also been involved in the said offence. The Authorized Officer by taking into consideration the fact that he has not established the ownership of the said vehicle has rightly rejected the said application. There are no good grounds to set aside the impugned order. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the certificate of registration and it indicates that Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing Registration No.KA.12A3322 is standing in the name of the petitioner. The said original Registration Certificate after perusal returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. On perusal of the records, the contents of the complaint and other material go to show that when the authorities received credible information and went to the place they stopped the lorry and they wanted to verify the contents of the lorry, the petitioner applicant who was in front of the lorry in Swaraj Mazda vehicle came there, identified the lorry belonging to him and thereafter he has produced certain documents and on verification they came to know that in the said lorry they were transporting wooden logs without any permit or licence and thereafter a case has been registered. 9. 9. On plain reading of the said complaint it indicates that the said Swaraj Mazda vehicle has not been used for the purpose of commission of any of the offence under the Forest Act and when the said car has not been used for the purpose of commission of the offence, then under such circumstances, seizing of the vehicle itself is not contemplated under the law. What has been stated in the Act is, if any vehicle is used for the purpose of commission of the offence under the Forest Act, then the same is liable to be seized and it is also liable to be confiscated. It is clear that the lorry which was carrying logs is liable to be seized and confiscated. Under such facts and circumstances the Authorized Officer ought to have released Swaraj Mazda vehicle to the applicant petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has fixed the norms for the purpose of disposal of the articles which are in custody of the police or any other Authorised Officer, wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that remaining of the said vehicle or article in the police custody is not safe and the same has to be immediately released by taking sufficient security and by obtaining the photographs of such articles. In that light and in the light of the ratio laid down in the case cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the Authorized Officer without application of mind and looking into the facts and circumstances has erroneously rejected the application, the same is liable to be set aside. In that light, the petition is allowed. The order dated 13.1.2020 passed by respondent No.2Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, Virajpet, in Crime No.66/2019 is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2Authorized Officer is directed to release Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing Registration No.KA.12A3322 to the petitioner applicant owner on proper identification and acknowledgment with following conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer. ii) He shall undertake to produce the vehicle in question as and when he is ordered to do so. ii) He shall undertake to produce the vehicle in question as and when he is ordered to do so. iii) Respondent No.2Authorized Officer is directed to take photographs from all angles and keep the same for the purpose of identity. The petitioner has to file affidavit to the effect that he would not dispute the identity of the car. iv) The petitioner shall not change the colour and identity of the said vehicle till the disposal of the case.