Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rohtash vs . State Of Rajasthan on 14 November, 2014
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2526/2014
Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2526/2014 Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 14th Nov. 2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. S.K.Poonia, for the petitioner.
Mr. V.S.Rajpurohit, P.P. <><><> Reportable The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.10.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner whereby the Revisional Court accepted the revision preferred by the petitioner and whilst setting aside the order dated 25.8.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority being the Divisional Chief Conservator of Forest Bikaner in appeal, directed the seized vehicle being Pickup registration No.RJ 31 GA-2724 to be released to the petitioner on interim Supardginama upon submitting a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs.
Facts in brief are that the petitioner's vehicle S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2526/2014 Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan 2 registration No.RJ 31 G.A.-2724 was seized by the S.H.O., Police Station Sidhmukh, Dist. Churu whilst transporting forest produce (green unripe Khejri wood) without permit.
The petitioner filed an application before the concerned Assistant Conservator of Forest for releasing the vehicle to him on Supardginama. The learned Assistant Conservator of Forest rejected the application preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 10.7.2014 holing that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated as the same was being used for transporting prohibited Khejri wood. If the vehicle was released on Supardginama there was every possibility that the accused would attempt to delay the trial of the case and would continue to use the vehicle to his own benefit. It was also opined by the Assistant Conservator of Forest that the release of vehicle seized under the provisions of Forest Act was beyond the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer and also against the letter and spirit of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1952 as amended in the year 2012. The learned Assistant Conservator of Forest also held that as the matters were pending consideration before the concerned criminal court, it would not be just and proper to confiscate the vehicles till the cases are decided by the trial court.
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned Assistant Conservator of Forest by filing an appeal S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2526/2014 Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan 3 before the Divisional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bikaner. The appeal came to be decided on 25.8.2014 and the Appellate Authority concurred with the order passed by the learned Assistant Conservator of Forest and rejected the appeal.
The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Authorized Officer by way of a revision. The Revisional Court vide order dated 7.10.2014 accepted the revision but imposed a condition of furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs and Supardginama of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer as a condition precedent before the vehicle was released to the petitioner in interim custody.
The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of instant misc. petition for setting aside the condition imposed by the Revisional Court of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lacs for getting interim custody of the vehicle during pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is subjudice before the trial court. There is every possibility that the petitioner might be acquitted by the trial court. In such a condition, the vehicle will no longer be liable for consication. He submits that imposing a condition that the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee for getting interim custody of the vehicle pending trial is too onerous and S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2526/2014 Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan 4 deserves to be modified. The petitioner deserves liberty to receive interim custody of the vehicle in question by furnishing a solvent security instead of a bank guarantee. He relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported AIR 2003 SC-638 and prays that the misc. petition be accepted and the condition imposed by the Revisional Court on the petitioner to furnish a bank guaratee of Rs. 2 lacs for geting interim custody be set aside.
Per contra learned P.P. urges that a presumption of law operates in the matter as the vehicle was found plying prohibited forest produce. He submits that the petitioner has contributed to the destruction of forest by permitting his vehicle to be used for plying unripe Khejri wood which is covered in the prohibited category. Persons indulging in such nepharious activities are not entitled to any leniency when the question of releasing the conveyance used for transportation of the prohibited forest produce arises. He further submits that if the vehicle is released to the petitioner on interim custody without bank guarantee, he will try to delay the trial of the case and there is every possibility that the vehicle may be re-utilized for committing forest offences.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material available on record.
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2526/2014 Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan 5 As per Sections 52 and 53 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, the authorised officer is empowered to release a vehicle seized under the Act in interim custody upon furnishing bonds. As per Section 53 of the Act, any officer above the rank of a ranger can, subject to the provisions of Section 52 of the Act release the seized vehicle to the owner thereof upon furnishing a bond that he shall produce the vehicle as and when required and at the place where required. No order of confiscation of vehicle has been passed till date. Section 55 of the Act provides that all the seized forest produce and the articles, related thereto machinery, means of conveyance shall be liable to confiscation at the conclusion of the trial and upon conviction of the accused. There is uncertainty about the duration for which the trial of the case would endure. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Revisional Court was justified in setting aside the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Authorized Officer and directing that the vehicle in question be released to the petitioner in interim custody till disposal of the trial. However, the question which calls for this Court's consideration is as to whether the condition of imposing a bank guarantee on the petitioner as a precondition for getting interim custody of vehicle is justified or not. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2526/2014 Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan 6 Karnataka Vs. K.Krishnan reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC)-657 imposition of condition of furnishing bank guarantee prior to releasing a vehicle seized under the Forest Act in interim custody is justified. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of bank guarantee which has been fixed by the Revisional Court at Rs. 2 lacs is excessive which deserves to be reduced by half.
Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed in part and the value of bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lacs imposed by the Revisional Court is reduced to a sum of Rs. One Lakh. Now the vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. One Lac and upon fulfilling the other terms and conditions imposed by the Revisional Court for releasing the vehicle on Supardaginama.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/Sushil/