Karnataka High Court
Sri Gajendra Singh K L vs The Authorised Officer And Deputy ... on 22 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:22419
CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1530 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI GAJENDRA SINGH K.L.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O. LAKSHMAN SINGH,
R/AT MOHAN SINGH COMPLEX,
DURGIGUDI,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
OWNER OF MAHINDRA BOLERO
VEHICLE NO.KA-14/P-2181.
HYUNDAI 1-20
CAR NO.KA-14/P-4100
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND
Digitally signed DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
by
SHARADAVANI
B
SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION,
Location: High SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201,
Court of
Karnataka BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 01
2. STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
DODDAPETE POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201,
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:22419
CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. STATE BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
SHANKAR RANGE,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 01
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. (FILED
U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2022
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, IN A3/71/PCR-270/2015-
16.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government pleader.
2. Revision Petitioner is the applicant who approached the Competent Authority namely Authorized -3- NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, Shivamogga division for release of the following vehicles :
(i) Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing No.KA-14/P-2181
(ii) Hyundai i-20 Car bearing No.KA-14/P-4100.
(iii) Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No.KA-
14/EG-7007 and
(iv) Hero Honda Passion Pro Bike Bearing No.KA-14, EE-4862.
which was registered in number A3/71/PCR-270/2015 and 2016.
3. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, passed an order on 17.02.2022 rejecting the application.
4. Revision petitioner being aggrieved by the said rejection, filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.30/2022 under Section 71-D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
5. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Competent Authority.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after taking into consideration rival contention of the parties, allowed the appeal in part and released the two wheeler Honda Activa bearing No.KA-14/EG-7007 and Hero Honda Passion Pro Bike Bearing No.KA-14, EE-4862 inter-alia holding in paragraphs No.11 to 14 as under ;
11. Now coming to the present set of facts, PW.1 and PW.4 have categorically deposed before the respondent No.1 about the incident and seizure of sandal wood billets from the above two vehicles. It is well settled law that, presumption of honest is applicable even to the police officers. In this regard, in the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Sunil and another (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein at para No.21, it is observed as under:
"We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are -5- NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions".
12. In view of the above legal position, the court cannot look the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 on an initial distrust. In other words, courts are expected to trust the evidence of police officers also unless it is shown that it is -6- NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR untrustworthy. If there is any animosity between owner of the vehicle and the police officers, the court can consider the evidence with suspicion. But, In the present case, the owner of the vehicle is examined as RW.1. RW.1 has stated that he was involved in Matka and other gambling, 5 years back and therefore, the police officers had filed false case against him. There is nothing on record to show that the RW.1 was involved in such offences and there was ill-will between him and police officers. It is not even stated that the very same PW.1 and PW.4 police official who have earlier targeted him. There is nothing on record to substantiate the case of appellant. It is also necessary to note that the appellant has not even stated as to from where these sandal wood billets are seized, Appellant is the owner of vehicle and is expected to be in the control of vehicle. Therefore, if these two vehicles are not seized as alleged by PW.1 and PW.4, appellant would have disclosed as to from where these two vehicles were seized and from whose custody it was seized. In this regard appellant has not given any evidence. Further, false implication of the vehicles alleging transportation of forest products is a serious issue and no one would keep quite if such a false case is foisted involving the alleged vehicles. The appellant is not a layman he states that he is having 2-3 shop premises at Durgigudi. If such a false case has been hoisted against him, certainly, he would have lodged complaint against PW.1 and PW.4 to their higher officer. Admittedly, this is not done by him, for the reason best known to him. Under these circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 with regard to involvement of these -7- NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR vehicles for the transportation or storage of forest products is established. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
13. POINT NO.2: The respondent No.1 has even confiscated the Honda Activa bearing Reg. No.KA-14/EG- 7007 and Hero Honda Fasion Pro bike bearing Reg. No.KA.14-ΕΕ-4862. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the appellant. was found with the motor bikes for the purpose of dealing with the forest products. Admittedly, nothing was transported in the motor bikes. Even if it is considered that the appellant for any other reason sitting in the motor bikes, that alone is not a ground to confiscate on the ground that the motor bikes were was used for transportation of sandal wood billets. In case of four wheelers, it is proved that the sandal wood billets were found in the vehicles. But so far as motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA.14-EG-7007 and Honda fasion pro bike bearing No. KA 14-EE-4862 are concerned, to confiscate the vehicles, there must be clear evidence to show that, it was directly or indirectly used for the commission of the offence. Hence, the evidence available on record is insufficient to hold that the motor bikes are used for the commission of offence under the Forest Act. Under these circumstances, it is not proper to confiscate Honda Activa bearing Reg. No.KA-14/EG-7007 and Hero Honda Fasion Pro bike bearing Reg. No.KA.14-EE-4862. Therefore, point No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR
14. Point No.3: In view of my answer to point No.1 & 2, the prosecution has proved that the Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-14/P-2181, Hyundai 1-20 Car bearing Reg.No.KA-14/P-4100 were used for the commission of the offence under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act and the prosecution has failed to prove that the motor bikes bearing Honda Activa bearing Reg. No.KA-14/EG-7007 and Hero Honda Fasion Pro bike bearing Reg. No.KA.14-EE-4862 used for the commission of offence under the Forest Act. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 71-D of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, is allowed in part.
Consequently, impugned order dated: 17.2.2022 passed by Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, Shivamogga Division, Shivamogga/respondent No.1 in A3/71/PCR-270/2015-2016, confiscating the vehicle Mahindra Bolero bearing Reg. No.KA-14/P-2181 and Hyundai i-20 Car bearing Reg.No.KA-14/P-4100, is hereby confirmed.
So far as the order of respondent No.1 confiscating Honda Activa bearing Reg. No.KA-14/EG-7007 and Hero Honda Fasion Pro bike bearing Reg. No.KA.14-EE-4862, is set aside.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. Being further aggrieved by the same, applicant is before this Court in this revision.
8. Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that revision petitioner and other accused have been acquitted by the Sessions Court after due trial in S.C. No.136/2017. Thus, confiscation proceedings should automatically end in favour of the applicant and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.
9. He would further contend that order of acquittal passed by the competent Court in SC No.136/2017 will have a bearing on the confiscation proceedings as well and competent authority is bound by the findings recorded by the Sessions Court inasmuch as there was no appeal filed by the State and thus, sought for allowing the revision petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. He would further contend that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court decided to release two two-wheelers as aforesaid, same logic should have been applied for release of Bolero jeep and i20 car. Therefore the order passed by the Competent Authority and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is incorrect and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.
11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned order.
12. He would further contend that very fact of the First Appellate Court has released two vehicles out of the four vehicles, shows that there is sufficient application of judicial mind while passing the impugned order and therefore sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
13. He would further contend that the criminal case for proving the offence under Section 86 and Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act is altogether different from the confiscation proceedings in the respect of the vehicles
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR which are seized in the incident and therefore argument put-forth on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
14. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the Investigation Officer - Head of the Raiding Party has seized four vehicles under the seizure panchanama. No doubt, panch witneses to seizure panchanama have not supported the case of the prosecution to any extent resulting in acquittal of the petitioner and other accused persons in SC No.136/2017.
16. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while entertaining the appeal of the revision petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.30/2022 did take into consideration that the order of acquittal recorded by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in SC No.136/2017 and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR has distinguished the proceedings before the First Appellate Court which is a confiscation proceedings and also dealt with the requirement of degree of proof in confiscation proceedings and the criminal prosecution under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act in extenso.
17. Further, if the case of the revision petitioner is to be accepted that the vehicles were seized on account of previous enmity, from where those vehicles are seized is not forthcoming in the evidence of the applicant who has been examined as RW-1.
18. It is his case that he has been picked up from his house at about 05.00 a.m. by the Head of the Raid Party illegally and produced before the Magistrate.
19. In other words, according to the revision petitioner, there was no seizure of vehicle and Panchanama as well as the other material on record have been concocted for foisting a false case against the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner inasmuch as he was a matka player earlier and has stopped playing matka.
20. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did consider this contention of the revision petitioner in extenso and has noted that except the oral say of the revision petitioner that he was a matka player.
21. Therefore there was an enmity nurtured between the Police and him resulting in foisting a false case is not probabilized by placing any material on record.
22. Revision petitioner has no doubt placed on record the proceedings before the Sessions Court vide Exhibit D1 in SC No.136/2017. What prevented him to place such material on record wherein he has been booked by the police for playing matka, is not forthcoming on record.
23. Since the petitioner has failed to establish that there existed a previous enmity/animosity between him and PW1 and PW4, the contention of the revision
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner cannot be countenanced in law that on account of the previous enmity, a false case has been foisted.
24. In fact while two vehicles in point Nos.2 in paragraph No.13 as referred to supra, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did take into consideration that the prosecution is not in a position to establish that the motorcycles were involved in transporting the sandalwood pellets and therefore those two two-wheelers have been given the custody by allowing the appeal in part.
25. In fact, the discussion made on point Nos.2 and 3 in this regard would amply establish that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did bestow the judicial mind into the facts of the case while considering the request of the revision petitioner for release of the vehicles by supplying cogent and convincing reasons.
26. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter though Panch witnesses to seizure
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22419 CRL.RP No. 1530 of 2025 HC-KAR panchanama have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
27. While upholding the validity of the Seizure Panchanama, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did take into consideration principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Government of NCT of Delhi versus Sunil and another reported in (2001) 1 SCC 652.
28. Thus, this Court does not find any valid reasons whatsoever to admit the revision petition for further consideration.
29. Accordingly, following Order:
ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31