LAWS(KER)-2011-4-86

FOREST RANGE OFFICER Vs. MADHAVAN

Decided On April 29, 2011
FOREST RANGE OFFICER Appellant
V/S
MADHAVAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.M.C.No.1045 of 2011 arises from the order dated February 26, 2011 passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad on C.M.P.No.711 of 2011 in O.R.No.1 of 2011 of Palakkayam Forest Station. The vehicle, allegedly belonging to the respondent who claimed to be its R.C owner, was seized in connection with O.R.No.1 of 2011 for alleged illicit transportation of reeds. Respondent filed C.M.P.No.711 of 2011 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') for interim custody of the vehicle. He contended that he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the vehicle from being used for any illicit purpose. Petitioner opposed the petition. Learned Magistrate was impressed by the claim made by the respondent. Observing that Forest officials have not initiated any confiscation proceeding, learned Magistrate allowed C.M.P.No.711 of 2011 and directed that interim custody of the vehicle shall be given to the respondent petitioner on his executing bond for Rs.1,50,000/- with two solvent sureties subject to the conditions mentioned in the impugned order. The State has challenged the said order in CRL.M.C.No.1045 of 2011. It is contended that it is without proper application of mind that learned Magistrate passed the impugned order and at any rate, the observations made by learned Magistrate as if petitioner has taken all precautions to prevent illicit transportation of reeds in the vehicle is not correct. It is also contended that at any rate, learned Magistrate should have directed respondent to produce bank guarantee for value of the vehicle. This Court passed an interim order on 1.4.2011 directing that the vehicle shall not be released. The Divisional Forest Officer, Mannarkkad issued order dated 24.3.2011 stating that respondent can get release of the vehicle on deposit of Rs.85,000/- being value of the vehicle failing which, the vehicle will be subjected to public auction. Respondent in CRL.M.C.No.1045 of 2011 has challenged the said order in W.P(C).No. 11614 of 2011.

(2.) PARTIES are referred as petitioner and respondent as in Crl.M.C.No.1045 of 2011. I have heard learned Government Pleader, appearing for petitioner/State and learned counsel for respondent.

(3.) IN the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned Government Pleader that respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1045 of 2011 (petitioner in WP(C).No.11614 of 2011) has to produce bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle.