CHANNABASAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the owner, being the R. C. holder of Lorry No. KA 05 1194. The said vehicle has been seized under S. 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ('act' for short) as a vehicle used in the commission of a forest offence in respect of a forest produce, and its seizure was reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate viz. , learned J. M. F. C. , Belur. The petitioner sought for interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 17-12-1992, granted interim custody, on the petitioner executing a Bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety for like sum, subject to the condition that the vehicle shall be produced as and when called for, that the petitioner shall neither alienate nor shall alter the condition of the vehicle until disposal of the case. The respondent-State questioned this in revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hassan in Cr. R. P. No. 54/93. The learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 20-8-1996, which is impugned herein, has set aside the said order of the learned Magistrate and has directed that the learned Magistrate should take the vehicle back to his custody and should direct the investigating officer to report the matter to the authorised officer. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, has approached this Court under S. 397, Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE FIR is at Annexure-'a'. It is alleged therein thus: On 4-12-1992, at about 3-00 a. m. , PSI of Belur Police Station, along with the members of his staff, found the vehicle concerned herein coming from Musavar side and checked it and found that, there were two bite wood logs and 13 logs of honne wood being transported in the said vehicle. The driver informed the police officer that the said logs were being brought from a coffee plantation in Basur Village and that the same were being transported to Kanakapura. There were no permits. The vehicle and the said logs were, therefore, seized. In the circumstances, the prosecution alleged commission of an offence punishable under S. 104-A of the Act read with Rule 127-A of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 ('rules' for short ).

(3.) IN the FIR, the police officer concerned did not say that the logs found in the vehicle concerned were the property of the State Government. On the contrary, a mention was made about the assertion of the lorry driver that the logs were from a coffee plantation in Basur village and being transported to Kanakapura. The commission of the alleged offence under S. 104-A of the Act read with Rule 127-A of the Rules was obviously for transporting the concerned logs without permit and in contravention of the above said provisions. In his order the learned Magistrate refers to the contentions taken by the State while opposing the petitioner's application for interim custody of the vehicle. The emphasis was on transporting the logs concerned without permit. Nowhere in the statement of objections did the State say that the logs were its own properties. All that was being contended was that, in view of S. 71g of the Act, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction. In addition to the absence of assertion that the property belongs to the State Government, what is of significance, as noticed by the learned Magistrate was that, the seizing authority had also not reported the seizure to the authorised officer under S. 71a of the Act.