1 IN 'THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED T!-HS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MoHAN7gED_Ei* I' I WRIT PETITION NOJ2624 OF"2cn5(G1vI- FOR; BETWEEN SHRI ANIL COLACO S /O J S COLACO AGED 40 YEARS COFFEE PLANTER KALASAPURA ESTATE _ . KOPPA, cHIKAMGALUR,DIST.'; ._ . 1* g " V. _ PETITIONER (By Sr;vT:"R'IE DI'/IENVKATESH, ADV ; AND : I j'I'E~IE AUTHQRIZED OFFICER 85 "<DE1?'UTY cO'NS.ERvATOR OF « FO'R'EST,KOPFA DIVISION " = .KO,FFA;-OIIIKAMAGALUR DIST. FOREST OFFICER FOREST MOBILE SQUAD IIOFPA, CI-IIKAMAGALUR DIST. " RESPONDENTS
I {.By..S.I*i : R DEVADAS, AGA }
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
MD 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FRAYIAIG TO
Rf
‘)
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.7.4.1999, PASSED BY
THE R1, PRODUCED AT ANN-C AND QUASH THE
IMPUONED ORDER DT.8.4.20()4, PASSED EY,–‘*-THE
LEARNED FAST TRACK COURTAI AT CH:KAMAOAL.U*R_,c.IN
CR.A.NO.61/99, PRODUCED AT ANNMD. L
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FORIT’
HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE TH1E1EO’i;.LO–w1NO;Vp_ ‘ A ., ‘
oRDER”~
The petitioner, owner of theV4’.__n”iO_tor ‘~
Mitsubishi Canter, mini lorry, ‘iiieégiring regist.rettioii,p No.KA-
18-1052, when intercepted,AAt””‘at,” iiKa_1kerei’KOdige road
junction on 27.s.1993,'”i_he” Officer, FMS,
Koppa vI’ét1Oi1gfi;vithi: Chis isitaiff fO’1L1’f1″(‘.i’21 pieces of beete {rose
Wood) iilpliicitly End accordingly seized the
Vehicle anti”-.rI1ateria1s,.Vswhich when produced before the
Authiaris_e’d ,Qffice’r,~.a_cti’on was initiated under Sec.”/1–A of
The’ .._FOrest Act, 1963, for short the ‘Act’, in
adfiihitioniv crirninal complaint registered as CC 698/ 1994
beforexthe OCMFC Court at Koppa for Offence punishable
Sec.104{A) of the Act, whence the persons arrested
– iivereflproduced. J H;
J \
2. The petitioner’s Cr1.A.38/1993 before the District
and Sessions Judge Court, Chickmagalur, was a1_4].oV\iv-edi~.by
order dated 12.1.1994 and the vehicle in H
to the petitioner by way of interim_–custody;’=ionAthe
execution of indemnity bond for
other conditions, on 22.1.1994.
3. Before the Authoriseditjiftice-ratwoi for the
prosecution were exarniipnedp ‘and 2, and the
petitioner was examined ‘ii1’he:’:ii’X_uthorised Officer
framed behaving regard to the
material on rec’o.rd.,_F’Vbeingmsatisfied that a forest offence
was cornrnittedi V the property of the State
Government, directed confiscation of the motor vehicle, the
size logs and the petitioner to surrender the
I ‘~v:ehi::il«e days, by order dated 7.4.1999 Annexure
B.
The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed
9;f.,cirirni.naiiii appeal No. 61/ 1999 before the Fast Track Court-
5
driver to take vehicle to the house of his friend by name
Prabhakar.
6. Per contra, learned Adpdl. ,fC3_ri
the respondent seeks to sustain ‘»the;’or.C’.ers..impugned
being well merited, fully jVusti_iiediii’a_.nid ic:a.l.1ing_ii3 for
interference. Learned counsel:”h_astensii’tot iifithat the
proceedings under the Act are
statutory and inpdepende..nt._ of criminal
proceedings the Act and
that the instant case, being
satisfied in question was used for
committingia» justified in passing the
ordergof confiscatioin. Learned counsel further submits that
lithe i’petit’io&11eir”having failed to establish that he had taken all
i’ca1’le_and.fpreCai1ti’on in the matter of entrustment of vehicle,
was’r_1ot ,cntitl~ed to any benefit of doubt or leniency. Learned
further contends that the vehicle in question was
ipiixteicased to the petitioner pursuant to the order of the
.. _D_iistrict Court as well as in Criminal Petition 623/2004.
7. The Karnataka Forest Act is a special statute
enacted for the purpose of preserving forest arid:i”fo;i’e.st.
produce in the State. The scheme of the if
power in the authorised officer of the”forest:departrnerit.fforo
the proper imp1err1entation/enforcement”of
provisions and to enable take V_effeVctive”:..;s’teps: to
preserve forest and foresztgproducef’u.£t”is’, in itihisregiard that
certain powers inciudingthe. confiscation
and forfeiture of the Vforest”produce..¢i:iI_ega113t:prernoved from the
forest, is ir1¥[_f?i;’=.,tec,%ii&Viii:i’1_.’1 .t1fie11-Authorisediibfficer. The non
obstante clause’—in_: the i’e1ievan.t::vprofvisions of the Act gives
overriding effect’iove_r”‘oth’eri”st_atutes and laws. Thus, what
emanates’ from the of the Act is that the
Authorised Off”1cerg_isVierni’povvered to confiscate and seize the
forest” on being satisfied that an offence under the
‘act .1-siécorrrrnvititecfland therefore the general power of the
JMF’G__to deaf the interim custody/ release of the seized
3u”‘~.p_irnateria1z-ttilnder the Criminal Procedure Code must
r1ece.ss_ari1y give way
{vii
.~
9. In View of Section 71A of the Act, there be
no more doubt, in my mind that the criminal prose’cutio’n
launched against the persons arrested on sieZ’ure._oofi if
vehicle alongwith forest produce, ..i»eadingT_ito,i1an,”ordé.f.V or-5..
acquittai has no bearing over the
the Authorised Officer in trie__”1natter”- of confiscation ‘and ” A
seizure. Therefore the contentiorii:A’o,f_ the leairriedppcounsei for
the petitioner that the Seizure mahazar
drawn under Subv.Section{V},i..of the Act, by the
JMFC in the the benefit of the
petitioner ufndieriiiiseiction 71A of the Act,
cannot say so, for yet another reason
that proceedings 71(A) can be instituted by
the authorised “officer either when the authorised officer
seizes sub–section (1) of Section 62 any timber, ivory
beinigvtheipi’-property of the State, or Where any such
property produced before an Authorised Officer under
iSub,–Secti.oh( 1) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has
A Committed in respect of such property as provided for
., in__sub–section (2) of Section 71(A) of the Act.
1 *4
i iv’ K
