Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THE instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order Dt. 7.10.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Bikaner whereby the Revisional Court accepted the revision preferred by the petitioner and whilst setting aside the order Dt. 3.9.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority being the Divisional Chief Conservator of Forest Bikaner in appeal, directed the seized vehicle being Pickup registration No. RJ -13G -6945 to be released to the petitioner on interim Supardginama upon submitting a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. Facts in brief are that the petitioner's Pickup vehicle registration No. RJ -13G -6945 was seized by the S.H.O., Police Station Sidhmukh, Dist. Churu whilst transporting forest produce (green unripe Khejri wood) without permit.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an application before the concerned Assistant Conservator of Forest for releasing the vehicle to him on Supardginama. The learned Assistant Conservator of Forest rejected the application preferred by the petitioner vide order Dt. 10.7.2014 holing that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated as the same was being used for transporting prohibited Khejri wood. If the vehicle was released on Supardginama there was every possibility that the accused would attempt to delay the trial of the case and would continue to use the vehicle to his own benefit. It was also opined by the Assistant Conservator of Forest that the release of vehicle seized under the provisions of Forest Act was beyond the jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer and also against the letter and spirit of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1952 as amended in the year 2012. The learned Assistant Conservator of Forest also held that as the matters were pending consideration before the concerned criminal Court, it would not be just and proper to confiscate the vehicles till the cases are decided by the trial Court. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned Assistant Conservator of Forest by filing an appeal before the Divisional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bikaner. The appeal came to be decided on 3.9.2014 and the Appellate Authority concurred with the order passed by the learned Assistant Conservator of Forest and rejected the appeal.
(3.) THE petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Authorized Officer by way of a revision. The Revisional Court vide order Dt. 7.10.2014 accepted the revision but imposed a condition of furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs and Supardginama of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer as a condition precedent before the vehicle was released to the petitioner in interim custody.;