B SOMANTH KOTIAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 16.1.2012 in Crime No. 189/2012 and the order dated 21.1.2013 in C.C. No. 19/2013 confirmed in Crl.R.P. No. 20/2013 by the learned Sessions Judge and for release of the two vehicles Mahindra Bolero seized in the course of the investigation. The facts relevant for the purpose of these petitions are as under:

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and also the learned High Court Government Pleader.

(3.) As could be seen from the records, seizure mahazar and also the charge sheet that have been filed, it is in respect of the wooden logs of CW7-Shivaram Hegde who had given the wooden logs to the petitioner and the trees grown in the non-agricultural land surrounding the house. Perusal of the seizure mahazar would reveal that the wooden log are of Mango tree and Uppalike tree. Admittedly, these wooden logs were owned by CW7-Shivaram Hegde and seized properties do not fall within the purview of Section 62(3)(a) of the Karnataka Forest Act, as this is neither the property mentioned in Clause(a) nor the property of the State Government. The question of approaching the Authorized Officer under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act does not arise. Therefore, as the said property do not fall within the purview of clause (a) aforesaid, under clause (b) of Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, it is the Magistrate who has jurisdiction to try the offence and pass any orders in respect of the property seized. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 16.11.2012 challenged in Crl.P. No. 1747/2013 directing the petitioner to approach the Authorized Officer under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act is illegal. Further his subsequent order rejecting the second application of the petitioner after the charge sheet was filed is also erroneous for the reason that he himself had jurisdiction to pass the orders under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. The order of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the order of the learned Magistrate is not valid in law. As the two vehicles are in the custody of the Authorized Officer as ordered by the learned Magistrate since long, they may lose the value in case if they are not kept in use and therefore in the interest of justice the petitioner is entitled to the interim custody. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to the interim custody of the vehicles bearing No. KA.21 A-6224 and KA.19 D-6262 on his executing indemnity bond in respect of each of the vehicles for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum each and on condition that he shall produce the vehicle as and when necessary and shall not change the type of the vehicles.