STATE OF T N Vs. B NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for writ of certiorari to call and quash the orders passed in C.A. No. 18/1994 dated 23-1-1995, on the file of District and Sessions Judge, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore. The writ petition has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu.

(2.) On 20-12-1992 at about 8.30 p.m. the Forest Ranger and his party, while they were watching the movements in the forest noticed one Mahindra van, bearing Reg. No. TN-01-B-9396, 100 metres away from the Kelur R. F. in Polur Range on Arani Polur Highways gave a signal. On seeing the signal two persons emerged from the Eucalyptus plantations in the Kelur R.F., beat and reached the van. The second accused alighted from the van and after a brief talk, reversed the van in the said plantation. Few minutes thereafter they heard the sound of loading sandalwood and closing the doors of the van. The party rushed to the spot in a jeep and intercepted the said van when they were about to reach the main road. They were able to secure A-1 and A-2. On search, they found sandalwood weighing about 646 kas worth Rs. 33,076/-. The seizure of the sandalwood was effected and as the van had no valid documents, the accused 1 and 2 were arrested at 10.50 p.m. A case was registered under Sections 21(d) and 35(b), 36(a) and (e) and Rule 3 and 1 of Tamil Nadu Sandalwood possession Rules, 1970. The seized materials were produced before the Forest Officer on 30-12-1992. The accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Thirupathur on 30-12-1992 and they were remanded to judicial custody. Confiscation proceeding under Section 49(A) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act was initiated and the registered owner of the vehicle B. Nagarajan, the first respondent filed petition for the release of the said van through his counsel on 29-3-1993. After providing sufficient opportunities and after the accused refused to receive the notice, the Forest Officer examined all the materials placed before him and ordered confiscation of the van. As against the said order, an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1994 was preferred challenging the order of confiscation. The said appeal was allowed by the learned District and Sessions Judge North Arcot Ambedkar District and the present writ petition has been filed against the same.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State contends that the only ground on which the appeal was allowed was that the second respondent namely the financier had not been impleaded in the complaint and has also not been served with the complaint and no show cause notice had been issued to the financier and therefore, the entire proceedings were vitiated.