THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No. 2331 of 1993 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1993 in Original Suit No.14 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kadapa. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff, in the suit. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,000/- being the value of secured amount as per the Ex.A1-bond dated 5.5.1982 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization. 4. The averments in plaint, in brief, may be stated as follows: First defendant is the owner of jeep MYX 1419 which was registered as APD 6792. Second defendant is the surety for the first defendant. On 9.9.1979, the then Forest Range Officer, Sidhout intercepted the jeep while it was illegally transporting six red sandal logs without permit or the Government hemmer marks, and seized the jeep along with the six logs and 26 red sandal logs stocked nearby the jeep in the Reserve Forest on Jyothi- Panchalingal road, and after investigation, the plaintiff passed an order dated 24.12.1979 confiscating the produce as well as jeep. The first defendant preferred Appeal No.11 of 1980 before the Sessions Judge, Kadapa, against the said order, and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 11.3.1980, set aside the order of confiscation dated 24.12.1979 passed by the plaintiff, and remanded the case to the plaintiff for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the plaintiff passed a fresh order dated 14.8.1980 confiscating the jeep and the produce to the state. Aggrieved by the said order, the first defendant filed Criminal Appeal No.67 of 1980 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, and the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 18.11.1981, dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 14.8.1980 passed by the plaintiff. Against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Kadapa, the first defendant preferred Criminal Revision Case No.79 of 1982 before this Court, and this Court suspended operation of the order of confiscation of the jeep vide order in Crl.M.P. No.307 of 1982 in the Crl.R.C. and directed release of the jeep in favour of the first defendant on executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Forest Range Officer, Sidhout. Accordingly, the defendants executed a bond dated 5.5.1982 on stamp paper undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required and in default to pay Rs.30,000/- towards costs of the vehicle. Thereupon, the jeep was returned to the first defendant on 5.5.1982. On 17.3.1983, the Crl.R.C. was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the first defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.13,627-50 ps. being the compound value of the produce within two months from the date of the said order, failing which the plaintiff was given liberty to seize the vehicle and confiscate the same to the State. The first defendant failed to comply with the directions of this Court. On 19.4.1983, Ex.A6-notice was issued to the first defendant to pay the amount as per the direction of this Court. On 20.05.1983, the first defendant submitted Ex.A7-representation before the plaintiff seeking time stating that a revision has been filed against the order of this Court. On 7.9.1983, a notice was issued to the second defendant demanding to produce the jeep. But, he did not comply with the same. It is learned by the plaintiff that the first defendant alienated the jeep. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff being the secured amount. 5. The first defendant filed written statement admitting his ownership over the jeep bearing no.APD 6792. He denied the seizure of the jeep along with red sandal logs by the Forest Range Officer. It is further stated that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to him and that he cannot be held liable for the seizure of the red sandal logs in the forest area; that the suit is premature and the plaintiff did not give any notice to produce the aforesaid vehicle and no enquiry was conducted before filing the suit; that the defendant had not alienated the jeep and is prepared to produce the jeep, and that he is not liable to pay either Rs.30,000/- or Rs.13,627-50 ps. and that the proceedings in criminal court are not binding on him, and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The second defendant filed written statement stating that this court directed the first defendant to deposit Rs.13,627-50 ps., being the compound value of the produce; that the jeep involved in the case would not cost more than Rs.8,000/-; that he is not aware of the notices issued by the plaintiff; that, without any opportunity to the defendants and without any enquiry, they cannot be punished; that the first defendant could have produced the vehicle if demanded, and that only on failure of the first defendant, this defendant is liable. It is further stated that the six red sander logs allegedly found in the jeep would not cost more than Rs.1,000/- and the defendants are not liable for the stocks that were found elsewhere; that simply because the defendant gave security bond for Rs.30,000/-, he is not liable to pay the amount, and the alleged surety agreement is inadmissible; that no notice was given to this defendant prior to filing of this suit, and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial. 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants ? 2) to what relief ? 8. During trial, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked, on behalf of the plaintiff, and D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked, on behalf of the defendants. 9. Accepting the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A1- surety bond, the trial Court came to conclusion that having executed the bond Ex.A1 for Rs.30,000/-, it is the duty of the defendants to produce the vehicle, but the same had not been produced and so, the bond had been forfeited, and the defendants are liable to pay the amount, and accordingly decreed the suit for Rs.30,000/- with costs with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization of the amount. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the defendants. 10. Now, the point for consideration is whether the defendants are liable to pay the amount and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper ? 11. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that, at the time of filing of the appeal, this Court directed the appellants to pay Rs.20,000/- and accordingly the said amount was paid; that, the remedy available to the respondent is to seize the vehicle and not to forfeit the bond executed by the appellants, and therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 12. None appears for the respondent. 13. The factual matrix with regard to seizure of the jeep by forest officials while it was transporting red sandal logs along with forest produce and production of the same before the competent authority under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, is not in dispute. The competent authority viz. the plaintiff, ordered confiscation of the jeep and the produce to the State, which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa by order dated 18.11.1981 in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 1980. The said order was challenged by the first defendant in Criminal Revision Case No.79 of 1982 before this Court. It is not in dispute that defendants executed Ex.A1-security bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the plaintiff to release the vehicle, in pursuance of the interim direction given by this Court in Crl.M.P. No.307 of 1982 in Criminal Revision Case No.79 of 1982. This Court disposed of the revision case with a direction to the first defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.13,627-50 ps. towards the compound value of the produce failing which the order of confiscation shall stand effected. As seen from the record, the amount of Rs.13,627-50 ps. has not been deposited by the defendants and therefore automatically the confiscation order has been given effect. 14. After disposal of the Criminal Revision Case, Ex.A6- notice dated 19.4.1983, was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants directing to pay that amount. The first defendant made Ex.A7-representation to the plaintiff seeking time for payment of the amount on the ground that they filed an appeal. As the defendants failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff issued Ex.A8 notice dated 2.3.1984 directing the defendants to produce the vehicle within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, as they failed to pay Rs.13,627-50 ps., as directed by this Court, failing which action would be initiated against them for realization of Rs.30,000/-. That has not been complied with. 15. As seen from the contents in Ex.A1-security bond, both the defendants agreed to return the vehicle whenever directed, failing which the vehicle will be confiscated to the State. Since the order of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.79 of 1982 has not been complied with, by the defendants, the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to seize the vehicle and confiscate the same, or to recover the amount as per Ex.A1.-security bond. Since, it seems, the vehicle had already been alienated by the defendants, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the amount covered under Ex.A1. 16. The only plea taken by the defendants in the trial Court is that in view of the fact that there is no default order passed by this Court, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount covered under Ex.A1-security bond. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that while allowing the appeal filed by the first defendant, this court directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.13,627-50 ps. being the compound value of the produce, within two months from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which the authorities are entitled to seize the vehicle and confiscate the same. No doubt, as seen from Ex.A5-Copy of order dated 17.3.1983 in Criminal Revision Case No.79 of 1982 passed by this Court, this court disposed of the revision holding that the order of confiscation is set aside the vehicle shall be released to the first defendant on his paying a sum of Rs.13,627-50 p. which is equivalent to the value of the Forest produce by giving two months’ time to him from the said date to pay the said amount. It is also held by this court that in case of default, the authorities can seize the vehicle and confiscate the same. Admittedly, that amount has not been paid by the defendants even till today. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to seize the vehicle from the custody of the defendants. In view of the fact that the vehicle is not in the custody of the defendants, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendants are bound to pay that amount, in case of default in producing the vehicle. There is no contra evidence adduced by the defendants to show that they are not liable to pay the amount as per Ex.A1. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial Court. 17. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in pursuance of the interim direction of this Court in this appeal, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the appellants. If really the said amount of Rs.20,000/- has been paid, on production of proof to that effect, the same shall have to be given credit to the decreetal amount. It is made clear that no finding is recorded that the appellants herein paid the said amount of Rs.20,000/- and the same has to be proved and established by the appellants at appropriate time by producing proof. 18. The Appeal Suit is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1993 in Original Suit No.14 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kadapa. No costs. --------------------- 25.10.2010 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No. 2331 of 1993 25.10.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No. 2331 of 1993 25.10.2010 Between: S.Ramthu Meah & another …Appellants And Govt. of A.P. rep. by the District Forest Officer, Kadapa …Respondent