FAIROZ KHAN Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the respondent - Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act,1963 ('the Act' for short) and confiscating 1008 kilograms of sandalwood which was being transporting in the goods truck bearing Regn. No.KA-01-B-6191 from Mysore to Delhi without any permit or licence, as per the order dated 20.5.2011, which was confirmed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya exercising the powers under the Appellate Authority in Criminal Appeal No.35/2011 by the Judgment dated 6.3.2012.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on the credible information received by the CPI, Mandya Rural Police on 23.6.2005 at 00-30 hours that the goods truck bearing Regn. No.KA-01-B-6191 carrying sandalwood illegally, the CPI and his staff went to Honakere village, near Mahadeshwar Saw Mill at about 1.30 p.m. At that time, the said goods truck bearing Regn. NO.KA-01-B-6191 came there. They stopped the vehicle and inspected the same. On their inspection, they found 1008 kilograms of sandalwood in the said vehicle. It was covered under Distin and Dettol medicine boxes of Mysore Rekit Ben Kaisar Company. The sandalwood was found to be worth Rs.3,02,400/-. It was being transported in the vehicle without any licence or permit. The said property and the vehicle were seized under the mahazar. Accordingly, a forest case was registered in Crime No.187/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the respondent - Authorized Officer had initiated confiscation proceedings.

(3.) The petitioner had challenged the initiation of the proceedings by the Authorized Officer, in Writ Petition No.19969/2005 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the Authorized Officer to dispose off the matter within eight weeks. Again, the petitioner approached this Court for release of the said vehicle to his interim custody. Subsequently, the vehicle came to be released to the petitioner as interim custody, pending confiscation proceedings.