IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36157 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- CMP.2628/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II, MANANTHAVADY .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- JOSE ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, VAZHAKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH CID, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NORTH WAYANAD DIVISION, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, BEGUR FOREST RANGE, MANANTHAVADY. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) MR. M.P.PRAKASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36157 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KL7/7254. According to the petitioner, originally it belonged to one Mr. T.M. Mohammed. By succession transfer of ownership, petitioner came to be in possession of the vehicle and at the relevant time he was the owner of the vehicle. Ext.P1 according to him is the evidence to the said fact. He also claims that he had discharged the hire purchase liability of the vehicle. The vehicle was seized for being involved in a forest offence. Petitioner would say that he had to do nothing with the offence and the vehicle has been illegally taken possession of. 2. Petitioner would point out that detention of the vehicle is illegal and that he is entitled to have possession of the vehicle. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor says that one M.M.Mathew was engaged in transporting Eucalyptus Billets from Begur Forest Range to the Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. and for that purpose, along with other vehicles, petitioner's vehicle was also used. It is pointed out that though 152 loads of Eucalyptus billets W.P.(C).No.36157 OF 2009 Page numbers were collected and transported to Hindustan Newsprint Ltd., Kottayam, only 118 loads reached the destination. 34 loads were misappropriated. The Government suffered a loss of more than Rs.7,00,000/- in that connection. Four persons were arrested and the vehicles were taken into custody. 4. Later on, the investigation was handed over to CBCID. According to the learned Public Prosecutor it is pointed out that the vehicle was in the custody of the court. Thereafter, the Range Officer obtained possession of the vehicle from the court and it was handed over to the DFO, the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the DFO had issued notice to the registered owner and accused persons. The petitioner does not have any claim. 5. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor. Going by the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is seen that notice has been issued to the registered owner as well as the accused persons. 6. If the petitioner has a case that the vehicle belongs to him, he can substantiate his claim before the DFO and seek appropriate orders. At the time of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this court and contended that in a similar case, release was ordered. W.P.(C).No.36157 OF 2009 Page numbers 7. I went through the judgment. The the registered owner had approached the court and it was found that no notice of confiscation proceeding was issued to the registered owner. 8. The decision can have no application here. Neither the registered owner or any of the accused has responded to the notice issued to them. 9. Petitioner may produce all the documents before D.F.O and establish that he is entitled to the custody of the vehicle. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv