Holding

A vehicle seized for alleged commission of a forest offence may be released only on the condition of furnishing an irrevocable bank guarantee, and the High Court’s modification of that condition under Section 482 CrPC is contrary to law.

Summary

The Range Forest Officer seized a jeep and a lorry along with forest produce for being transported without a permit under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The authorized officer ordered the jeep’s release on the condition that the respondent furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee, but the respondent sought unconditional release through a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court modified the condition, allowing release on two sureties instead of a bank guarantee. The State of Karnataka appealed, arguing that the High Court’s modification contravened the statutory scheme and that vehicles used in forest offences should not be released until all proceedings, including confiscatory ones, are concluded, except on a bank guarantee in exceptional cases. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was contrary to law, affirmed that a bank guarantee is the minimum condition for any such release, and set aside the High Court’s modification.

Issues considered

When may a vehicle seized under Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act be released pending trial?
Can the High Court, exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, substitute the statutory bank‑guarantee condition with a lesser surety requirement?
Does the authorized officer’s order requiring a bank guarantee comply with the purpose of the Karnataka Forest Act?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963s. 62, s. 71, s. 71A, s. 71G

Subjects

forest lawseizurevehicle releasebank guaranteeSection 482 CrPCconfiscationKarnataka Forest Actinterim custody

Judgment

A STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
K. KRISHNAN

AUGUST 17, 2000

B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 :

S. 62-Forest produce-Unauthorised transportation of-Seizure ofalong
with the vehicle-Authorised officer directing to release the vehicle on furnish-
c ing bank guarantee-Order challenged u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.-High Court modify-
ing the order and directing release of vehicle on furnishing sureties-Held,
order is contrary to law-Vehicle used in committing a forest offence when
seized, shall not normally be returned till culmination of all proceedings
including confiscatory proceedings-For exceptional reasonsfurnishing a bank
D guara(ltee should be the minimum condition-No opinion expressed on power
of High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. in the matter.

A jeep and a lorry along with certain forest produce, which was
being transported in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963, were seized by the Range Forest Officer. The respondent filed an
E application for release of the jeep to him on interim custody. The Author-
ised Officer ordered the vehicle to be released to the respondent, inter alia,
subject to the condition that respondent would furnish irrevocable bank
guarantee. The respondent filed a petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. for quash-
ing of the order of the Authorised Officer and for unconditional release of
the Vehicle. The High Court directed that the order of Authorised Officer
F
relating to the bank guarantee would stand modified and the respondent
would furnish two sureties for purpose of getting interim custody of the
jeep. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeal.
..
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD : 1.1. The order impugned is contrary to law. The approach
adopted both by the Authorised Officer and the High Court i;ompletely ig-
nores the importance of the forests and the purpose of the object for which
-
the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 was made. When any vehicle is seized on
the .allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same
H shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the pro-
490
STATE v. K. KRISHNAN [SETHI, J.] 491
ceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if A
any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to re-
lease the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should
be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that re-
lease of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is al-
leged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. B
[494-G-H; 495-B]

1.2. The provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied
with and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the
Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the prop-
erty seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is C
likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for
releasing the forest produce or the property used in the commission of the
forest offence, the Authorised Officer or the Appellate Authority has to
specify the reasons which justify such release, apparently, prima facie
excluding the possibility of such forest produce or the property being
D
confiscated ultimately. [494-C-D]

1.3. Since the appellant-State has not prayed for quashing the order
of the Authorised Officer, this Court refrains to deal with the matter
further, though the Court does not approve it. Further, the Court has its
reservations with respect to the powers of the High Court under s.482 E
Cr.P.C. in the matter. [495-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 668
of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.99 of the Karnataka High F
Court in Crl.P. No. 2852 of 1999.

N.P. Midha and N. Ganpathy for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. Leave granted. G

A jeep bearing Registration No.KL! 3839 and Lorry with Registration
No.KA-21-2071 were seized by Shri Padmanabha Gowda, Range Forest Of-
ficer, Puttur on 3.9.1997 along with six Kiralbhogi Jogs, a forest produce which
was being transported without the permit in violation of the provision of the
H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After reg-
istration of Case No.199/96-97, the vehicles along with the seized timber were
produced before the Authorised Officer (Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Mangalore Division, Mangalore) for taking action under Section 71-A of the
Act. Vide order dated 6.2.1997 the Range Forest Officer, Puttur was authorised
to keep the vehicles and logs under his safe custody till further orders. Lorry
B
owner filed an application for the release of his vehicle which was rejected on
14.5.1997. However, vide order dated 11.7.1997, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1997, the said
lorry was released to its registered owner on interim custody. Thereafter the
respondent filed an application praying for the release of the vehicle to him on
c interim custody. On production of RC Book the jeep bearing Registration
No.KL! 3839 was ordered to be released to the interim custody of the respond-
ent subject to the following conditions:

"I. The applicant shall furnish irrevocable Bank Guarantee for Rs.85,000
from a scheduled bank which shall be renewable from time to time till
D the disposal of the case charged against the jeep.

2. The applicant shall not alienate or further encumber the vehicle and
change the identity of the vehicle till the disposal of the case.

3. The applicant shall produce the vehicle on !st of every month or
E next working day if !st happens to be holiday before this court."

Not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the respondent herein filed a
petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court
of Karnataka praying for quashing of order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the
Authorised Officer and for the unconditional release of vehicle. It appears that
F
the High Court directed the SPP to take notice and immediately thereafter
passed the order impugned by which it was directed that the order of the
....
Authorised Officer in so far as it related to the bank guarantee shall stand
modified and the respondent shall furnish only two solvent sureties to the
satisfaction of the authority to an extent of Rs.1,50,000 each for the purpose
G of getting the interim custody of the jeep.

Feeling aggrieved, the State of Karnataka has filed this appeal by special
leave.

The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating lo forests
H and forests produce in the State of Karnataka with the main object of pn;o;erving
STATE v. K. KRISHNAN [SETHI, l] 493
and protecting the forests and their produce in the State. Forests produce has A
been defined under sub-section (7) of Section 2 as under:

"2(7) "forest produce" includes-

(a) the following whether found in or brought from a forest or not, that
is to say: B
Timber, charcoal, caoutchoue, catechu, sandalwood lootikai (Capparis
Mooni), wood oil, sandalwood oil, resin, rubber latex, natural varnish,
bark, lac, mahua or ippe (Bassialatifolia) flowers and seeds, seeds of
Prosopis, juliflora, kuth, and temburni or tupra (Diospyros-
Melanoxylon) leaves, rosha, (Terminalia Chebulia, Terminalit Belerica C
phyllanthus Emblica, Rampatre and Shigakai; and

(b) the following when found in, or brought from a fon~st that is to
say:

(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce D
()
not herein before mentioned of trees;

(ii) being plants not trees, (including grass, creepers, reeds and
moss), and all parts of produce of such plants;

(iii) wild animals and peafowls and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk E
cocoons, honey and wax and all other parts or produce of wild
animals, pea fowls and insects; and

(iv) peat, surface soil, rock, and minerals (including limestone),
laterite, mineral oils, and all products of mines or quarries; and
F
(iva) cocoa beans or pods, garcinia fruits, thomless bamboos, Halmaddi,
Raldhupa and Kaldhupa;

(v) such other products of forests as the State Government may, by
notification, declare to be forest produce;"
G
Chapter VI of the Act makes provision for control of timber and other
forest produce in transit. The Authorised Officer has the power to seize any
forest produce together with all tools, boats, vehicles or cattle or any other
property used in connection with the commission of an offence in respect of
any forest produce. An Authorised Officer has also the power to release the
H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. .
A property seized under Section 62. All timber or forest produce, which is not
the property of Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been
committed and all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any
forest offence are liable to forfeiture to the State Government subject to the
provisions of Section 7 lG of the Act. Section 71A authorises the Forest Officer
to order -confiscation of the seized property in certain cases. Any person
B
aggrieved by an order passed under Section 7 lA or Section 71 C has the right
to file an appeal to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in
which the property to which the order relates has been seized.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has submitted and we
c agree that the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with
and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was
enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized,
which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate
the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for releasing the forest
produce or the property used in the commission of the forest offence, the
D Authorised Officer or the Appellate Authority has to specify the r~sons which
justify such release, apparently, prima .facie excluding the possibility of such
forest produce or the property being confiscated ultimately. Generally, there-
fore, any forest produce and the tools, boats, vehicles, catties, etc., used in the
commission of the forest offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should not be
E released. This, however, does not debar the officers and the authorities under
the Act including the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders under the
circumstances of each case but only after assigning valid reasons. The liberal
approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with
respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect
the mother-earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The Courts cannot shut
F their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the
purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The
forests are not only the natural wealth of the c0untry but also protector of
human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. We are of the
considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was
G used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned
to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence,
including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional
reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, fur-
nishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be
under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms,
STATE v. K. KRISHNAN [SETHI, J.] 495
when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest A
offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat
commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot
be replenished for years to come.

The approach adopted both by the Authorised Officer and the High Court
completely ignores the importance of the forests and the purpose of the object B
for which the Act was made. As the appellant-State has not prayed for quashing
the order of the Authorised Officer we refrain to ·deal with that even though
we do not approve it. We are, however, satisfied that the High Court had
adopted a very casual approach while disposing of the petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides that the order impugned is c
contrary to law, we have our reservations with respect to the powers of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the matter which we do not express in this
case.

Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned,
passed by the High Court is set aside. D
R.P. Appeal allowed.