RAMACHANDRA B K Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apprehending that the petitioners were transporting fire-wood in violation of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) and the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (the Rules) the police of Belthangadi in DK Dist.. seized, at about 6 30 p.m., on 5 6 1983, a lorry bearing registration No. KLU 9382 with fire-wood in it on Koyyur Belthangady road at a place called Malebettu. They registered a case in their Crime No. 90 of 1983. A first information report was sent to the Court of the JMFC, Belthangady, along with the property form, and the same were received by the Court on 6.6.1983. On that day the Police requested the learned Magistrate to permit them to produce two items out of the seized articles before the District Forest Officer having jurisdiction over the area. The two items were the goods vehicle referred to above (KLU-9382) and the firewood pieces of the value of Rs. 1,000. In the requisition made to the Court the Sub-Inspector of Police stated that they propose to proceed against the accused re : these two items under S. 71A of the Act. and therefore they may be permitted to take the aforesaid two items before the Dist. Forest Officer. On that requisition the learned Magistrate passed an order in these terms : "........permitted to produce before the competent authority".

(2.) Challenging the aforesaid order the petitioners have approached this Court under S. 397 read with S. 401 of the Crl.PC, 1973 (the Code). The 1st petitioner is said to be the registered owner of the lorry, and the second claims to run a fire-wood depot at a place called Laila in Belthangadi Tq It is said that the second petitioner is in possession of the lorry under an agreement of sale entered into with the 1st petitioner. What is further stated on behalf of the petitioners is that Belthangadi PSI, is not well disposed of towards them ; that he has foisted a false case against them ; that they were not transporting any fire wood in violation of the rules as alleged ; that the lorry was parked near a fire-wood depot and was empty ; that the PSI, got it loaded with the fire wood, with a mala fide intention, from the depot and thereafter had created false records; that, even otherwise, assuming the facts placed by the police now are correct, it cannot be said that re: these properties an enquiry under S. 71A of the Act was called for in view of the fact that nowhere have the police stated that the fire-wood was the property of the Government; and that, in the circumstances, the Court below has erred in permitting them to produce the fire wood before the Dist. Forest Officer and, that it had done so without applying its mind and in violation of the relevant provisions of the Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in the circumstances, quashing the impugned order, the Court below may be directed to make an appropriate order after hearing the parties.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned State Public Prosecutor argued that this revision has to be dismissed in limine for the reason that there has been no order of the Magistrate as such to call in question ; that the facts collected by the Police do disclose that the fire-wood was the property of the Government; that, therefore, the investigating officer had decided to proceed in accordance with S. 71A of the Act; and that, if the petitioners' contention is that the fire-wood being private property cannot be dealt with under S. 71 A, they are entitled to raise this objection before the Dist. Forest Officer who is empowered, in law, to try this matter under S. 71A ; that, however, the Court below has no jurisdiction to go into this question at this stage ; and, therefore, the revision may be dismissed.