Karnataka High Court
The Range Forest Officer, Wildlife ... vs Smt. Shakira Banu on 6 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: ILR2001KAR3652, 2001(4)KARLJ369, 2001 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1832, (2001) 4 KANT LJ 369
Author: G. Patribasavan Goud
Bench: G. Patribasavan Goud
ORDER
1. While granting interim custody of a vehicle seized under Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ('Act' for short), the Authorised Officer, among other conditions, imposed the condition that the respondent-RC holder of the vehicle concerned should furnish bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 1,90,000/-. In appeal by the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge has, however, set aside this condition. The State has now come up in revision.
2. It is to be remembered that in this revision petition, State is not aggrieved by the order of return of vehicle by way of interim custody as such. It is only with regard to doing away with the condition relating to giving of bank guarantee, the revision petitioners, i.e., the Range Forest Officer as well as the Authorised Officer have come up in appeal. In State of Karnataha v K. Krishnan , the Supreme Court said thus.-
"We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was 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, furnishing 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, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its causality will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come".
3. It is thus evident that apart from Section 63 of the Act relating to release of a vehicle on furnishing of bank guarantee, irrespective of whether, to a given case, Section 63 of the Act is applicable or not, the Supreme Court has held as a general rule, that in every case, that too, when, for exceptional reasons, a vehicle seized in connection with the commission of an offence relating to forest produce is to be released, it shall not be on easier terms, but that, as a minimum condition, there shall be the furnishing of bank guarantee. In view of what the Supreme Court has so categorically held on the very subject in general, I am of the opinion that, no occasion would arise to examine as to whether the bank guarantee as statutorily required under Section 63 of the Act would be applicable to the case concerned herein. While furnishing of bank guarantee under Section 63 of the Act is a mandatory requirement in case to which Section 63 of the Act would apply, even in other cases where the custody of the vehicle connected with the commission of an offence concerning forest produce is ordered on exceptional grounds, still, as per the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, the minimum condition that needs to be imposed is the furnishing of the bank guarantee. In the circumstances, in the present case, the learned Appellate Judge has erred in doing away with the condition relating to furnishing of bank guarantee.
(emphasis supplied)
4. As to for what amount the bank guarantee should be furnished, decision needs to be taken on the facts and circumstances of each given case. Here is a mini van of 1998-make. Having regard to the fact that the Authorised Officer himself had asked for an indemnity bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to the bank guarantee, I am of the opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, it would be just and proper to direct the respondent to furnish bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).
5. Impugned order modified accordingly, and petition disposed of accordingly.
6. Authorised Officer is directed to complete the confiscation proceedings, and to take a final decision on merits within three months from today.