AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BELGAUM DIVISION Vs. SRI. NAGARAJ NAGABHUSHAN SHEELAVANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality and the correctness of the order passed toy the Fast Track Court -II and Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Crl. Appeal No. 129/2005 dated 27.5.2005 is called in question by the Authorised officer and the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Belgaum Division, Belgaum.

(2.) ON the receipt of the credible information by the Forester officer of Khanapur Forest Range that the truck bearing registration No. MEZ -4179 was illegally transporting the timber of the forest from Sy. No. 30 of Harsanawadi Forest, seized the truck which was carrying the forest produce. A case was registered against the respondent for the offence committed under the provisions of the Forest Act and a show cause notice was seamed by the Authorised officer to the respondent as to why the truck should not be confiscated to the State, After hearing, the authorised officer ordered to confiscate the truck of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Fast track Court -II and Add1. Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Crl. Appeal No. 129/2004. In the appeal, the order of the authorised authority dated 29.3.2004 was modified and affirmed the order of confiscation. However, the Forest Department was directed to consider the market value of the vehicle through, a proper value and confiscate 1/4th of its value to the Government and return the remaining sum to the respondent -owner within a period of two months. This order is called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate taking me through the orders passed by the Fast Track Court contends that the Fast Track Court without considering that the entire truck is confiscated, has erroneously directed the petitioner to confiscate only 1/4th of the market value and to return 3/4th of the value of the truck to the respondent. According to him, when the orders of the authorised officer in regard to the confiscation of the vehicle has been upheld, question of passing such order does not arise at all. Therefore, he requests the Court, to allow the writ petition and quash the direction issued by the Fast Track Court to recover only 1/4th of the market value of the seized vehicle.