- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-3-2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions judge, Chikmagalur, in Crl. A. N9- 14/99 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner/financier under Section 71 (D) of karnataka Forest Act (for short the 'act')against the impugned order passed by the authorised Officer in his file No. A4. FOC. 139/93-94 dated 18-12-1998. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P. C. contending that the revision petitioner being the financier -cum-owner of the vehicle is entitled to have the custody of the vehicle and moreover, the authorised Officer has not given any opportunity to putforth her contentions and the authorised Officer has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act by issuing show cause notice to the registered owner. As on the date of the alleged involvement of the vehicle in the alleged transporting of sandal wood billets, which was in the custody of the registered owner and since the mandatory provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the Authorised Officer and therefore, the order passed by the authorised Officer and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are illegal, incorrect and against the provisions of law.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that on 26-2-1994 the forest authorities were on patrolling duty on Khandya-Kondadakhan road. At about 6 p. m. while they were in front of Bidare Grama Panchayat office, they found offending Lorry MEG-5947 coming from Kondadakhan side, these forest authorities splashed the torch light and gave signal to stop the vehicle. The driver of the lorry did not stop it and proceeded further and then, the forest officers got into their departmental vehicle and chased the lorry. In spite of firing two rounds of bullet in the air, the lorry did not stop immediately and at Ujjani bus stop the lorry was stopped and the three inmates got down abandoned the lorry and started running and they were found in the head light of the lorry. The forest authorities identified one of the three persons as Revanna S/o. Janakamma and he was caught but the remaining two persons who are the driver and conductor sped away from that place. Then the forest officers and officials returned near the lorry along with Revanna, S/o. Janakamma and on search, they found the balls of robust coffee in a gunny bag. They removed under the tarpaulin and found as many as 233 sandal wood billets, on which there were no hammer marks and there was no pass or permit. That apart, two gunny bags containing sandal wood chips were also found. Thereafter, after complying with the mandatory provisions and after taking measurements of each sandal wood billets, they were serially numbered and FOC number was written on each one of them. After that, gunny bags containing sandal wood chips were given numbers and the tarpaulin was also given number. Thus, there were sandal wood billets in all weighing about 2,405 kgs. To that effect, a detailed mahazar was drawn between 7. p. m. till 11. 00 pm. and seized those sandal wood billets, sandal wood chips and the lorry. Thereafter, the said lorry and the seized properties were taken to the forest office and the FIR was prepared and then, it was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the report was submitted to the authorised Officer, with a prayer to initiate the confiscation proceedings.
(3.) WHEN the proceedings were pending, the revision petitioner being the financier, filed an application to release the vehicle to her custody. The request of the revision petitioner came to be rejected and accordingly, the revision petitioner approached this Court and this Court allowed the said application and directed that the lorry seized in this case be given to the interim custody. Accordingly, the vehicle was released. Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein, after receipt of show cause notice, appeared before the Authorised Officer and participated in the confiscation proceedings. 3a. Heard the arguments of Sri. K. M. Nataraja, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. S. G. Rajendra Reddy, hcgp appearing for the respondent.;