RAJU AUGUSTINE Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved with the refusal to release vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-40A- 7027 and the timber transported, pursuant to which detention & seizure, O.R. No. 4 of 2017 of Forest Range Office, Mankulam was registered. The vehicle and the timber were seized on 20.03.2017 as is evidenced from Ext.P5 Mahazar. Ext.P5 indicates that when the vehicle was sought to be detained, the driver stopped the vehicle and ran out, who could not be apprehended, even though chased. The Forest Officials on further inspection of the vehicle found that it contained timber logs, which transport was not supported by any documents. Hence a crime was registered as O.R. No. 4 of 2017 and the vehicles were seized.

(2.) The vehicle belongs to the 2nd petitioner and the logs were cut from the property of the 1st petitioner, which did not require any sanction from the Forest authorities, contend petitioners. It is also submitted that Ext.P3 Certificate issued by the Village Officer on the very next day specifically indicates that the logs were cut from the property of the petitioner, wherein the stumps were detected as seen from the Certificate issued by the Village Officer.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on John Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam [1996 (2) KLT 984] and Shihab etc. Vs. State of Kerala and Another [2016 (4) KHC 183] to argue for release of the vehicle and logs to the custody of the petitioner on a bond as stipulated in Sec. 53 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no notice issued with respect to confiscation and there is no reason why the vehicle and logs be kept in the custody of the Forest Officials pending confiscation proceedings, especially when the petitioner is willing to execute a bond for production of the same whenever it is sought for. The confiscation proceedings also have not been initiated till date maintain the petitioners.