STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K A KUNCHINDAMMED
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
April 16,2002
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Appellant
VERSUS
K.A.KUNCHINDAMMED
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
GANGA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-1-96] [REFERRED TO]KISHORE SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
BAPALALSINH DOLATSINH JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-219] [REFERRED TO]
PARESHKUMAR JAYKARBHAI BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
GEETHA DECORTICATERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-11-83] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-308] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR NARMADA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN S/O SAMDA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
OLI MOHAMMED VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-624] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) VS. NARENDER [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD TAZIM VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2012-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAJENDRA SAH [LAWS(PAT)-2016-4-145] [REFERRED TO]
JHALA GHANSHYAMSINGH MOBATSINGH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-12-299] [REFERRED TO]
MOOSAKOYA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD ESSENTIAL OIL INDUSTRIES VS. FOREST RANGE OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2005-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN MEHRAT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-145] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUJIT KUMAR RANA [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-110] [REFERRED TO]
MANI AND ORS. VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT WING AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTAFA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
KHUMLO ABI ANAL VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [LAWS(MANIP)-2022-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIWAS VS. GAME RANGE CHAMBAL SANCTUARY BHIND HEADQUARTER [LAWS(MPH)-2012-2-92] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIWAS VS. GAME RANGE CHAMBAL SANCTUARY BHIND HEADQUARTER [LAWS(MPH)-2012-2-92] [REFERRED TO]
KALU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-9-162] [REFERRED TO]
SADH MOHAMMAD VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2021-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
N. CHINNAN VS. THE STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-553] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. DANGMAN JUGLI [LAWS(GAU)-2024-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-155] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN BACHER VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2018-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
RATNESWAR GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
MD. OFFIJOL HOQUE VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-309] [REFERRED TO]
HARUN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The question that arises for determination in this appeal is - which authority has the power to pass order for interim release of the forest produce seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). Is it the Authorized Officer under the Act or the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure
(3.)The facts of the case relevant for appreciating the question may be stated thus : A lorry bearing registration No. KL-10-J-1728 carrying 5 barrels of sandalwood oil weighing 136.5 kgs. was seized by the officials of the Forest Mobile Squad, Udupi on 2nd of March 2000 on the allegation of illegal transportation of the forest produce. FIR NO. 08437 OR No. 108/99-2000 was registered on the same day. On 3rd March, 2000 a report about the seizure was submitted to the Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kundapur, under Section 71-A of the Act. By order of the Authorised Officer dated 7th March, 2000 custody of the seized material and the vehicle was entrusted to the Range Forest Officer, Udupi as whereabouts of the driver of the vehicle and its owner were not known to the Authorised Officer. Attempts were made to get the particulars from office of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) concerned in the State of Kerala. Having failed to get any response from the RTO the Authorised Officer got published a notice on 31st August, 2000 for information of all concerned particularly, the persons interested in the goods seized. The notice was published in the daily newspaper 'Udayavani' on 18-9-2000. Nobody came forward to claim either the seized sandalwood oil or the vehicle. Thereafter the authorized officer by order dated 31-10-2000 ordered confiscation of the seized vehicle and sandalwood oil. The said order was published in the official gazette on 9th November, 2000 and also published in the newspaper 'Udayavani's on 15-11-2000. The order was not challenged in appeal under Section 71-D of the Act or in any other proceeding. The order of confiscation stood confirmed under Section 71-F of the Act. The order of confiscation as confirmed was been published in the official gazette on 4th January, 2001.
(2.)The question that arises for determination in this appeal is - which authority has the power to pass order for interim release of the forest produce seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). Is it the Authorized Officer under the Act or the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure
(3.)The facts of the case relevant for appreciating the question may be stated thus : A lorry bearing registration No. KL-10-J-1728 carrying 5 barrels of sandalwood oil weighing 136.5 kgs. was seized by the officials of the Forest Mobile Squad, Udupi on 2nd of March 2000 on the allegation of illegal transportation of the forest produce. FIR NO. 08437 OR No. 108/99-2000 was registered on the same day. On 3rd March, 2000 a report about the seizure was submitted to the Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kundapur, under Section 71-A of the Act. By order of the Authorised Officer dated 7th March, 2000 custody of the seized material and the vehicle was entrusted to the Range Forest Officer, Udupi as whereabouts of the driver of the vehicle and its owner were not known to the Authorised Officer. Attempts were made to get the particulars from office of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) concerned in the State of Kerala. Having failed to get any response from the RTO the Authorised Officer got published a notice on 31st August, 2000 for information of all concerned particularly, the persons interested in the goods seized. The notice was published in the daily newspaper 'Udayavani' on 18-9-2000. Nobody came forward to claim either the seized sandalwood oil or the vehicle. Thereafter the authorized officer by order dated 31-10-2000 ordered confiscation of the seized vehicle and sandalwood oil. The said order was published in the official gazette on 9th November, 2000 and also published in the newspaper 'Udayavani's on 15-11-2000. The order was not challenged in appeal under Section 71-D of the Act or in any other proceeding. The order of confiscation stood confirmed under Section 71-F of the Act. The order of confiscation as confirmed was been published in the official gazette on 4th January, 2001.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.