IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF AUGUST, 2O I BEFORE THE HON ‘BLE MR.J USTICE B.VPiNT() CRIMINAL_PETITION NO. 10880L2011 BETWEEN; I. Sri Ani1 H. Lad Aged about 37 years S/o. Late Heero V. Lad Director M/s. VSL Mining Company Pvt. LtcL, House of Lads. Smndur Taluk Bcllarv District 2. M / s. \/SL Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Director Mr. Anil H. Lad House. of Lads, Sandur Taluk Bellarv Dist. PETITIONERS (By Sri. L. M. Chidanandaiah, Adu.) AND; The State of Karnataka Rep by Range Forest Officer Sandur Range Sandur Taluk Bellarv District RESPONDENT (By Sri, IViahesh Wodeyar. AGA1 -2- This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the portion of the order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur in FOC No.40/2008. This criminal petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: - ORDER This petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 26.06.2011 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC. Sandur in• FOC No.40/2008, in which the learned Magistrate has directed the seized property to be released in favour of the petitioners on execution of the Bank Guarantee for Rs. 1.03,40,762/- and also the Indemnity bond for the said amount with two solvent sureties, for the like sum along with the solvency certificate issued by the concerned authority.. 2. The Range Forest Officer, Ramanamalai Reserved Forest, has filed the First Information Report stating that the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 6, 24(a)? (b) (c) (ii) (e) (fl (gg) -3- (h) (j), 64, 64A, 828 and 73(d) of the Kamataka Forest Act, 1963 (‘Forest Act’ for short) and also Section 2 of the Karnataka Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 3. The learned Magistrate has considered the application filed by the petitioners under Section 457 of Cr.P.C and has passed a detailed order allowing the said petition and directing the release of the property seized under the said case on execution of a Bank Guarantee for a sum mentioned above. 4. Heard Sri. L. M. Chidanandaiah. learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, Learned AGA for the State. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the property seized by the càmplainant is not liable for confiscation and therefore, Section 63 of the Forest Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is only a direction to the police officers or the officer seizing the property and that the said provision is not a -4- applicable to the Court, while releasing the property. He also submits that Section 71(A) of the Forest Act. which deals with the confiscation of the property seized by the Forest Officials is not applicable to this case and therefore, imposition of condition to furnish Bank Guarantee is contrary to the provisions of law. It is further submitted by him that the property worth more than one crore is being exposed to sun and weather and that, as the time passed its value will be diminishing and therefore, injustice is caused to the petitioners. Hence he submits that the property may be released on executing the indemnity bond and on furnishing sureties and the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee may be set aside. 6. Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, learned AGA on the other hand submits that the property seized is a forest produce and the utensils are liable to be confiscated as defined under Section 71(A) of the Forest Act and that the learned Magistrate having found that the petitioners -5- are entitled for the possession of the said property. pending disposal of the main matter has imposed the condition which is in accordance with law. He has further relied on the ruling reported in AIR 2004 SC 1251 In the case of Section Forestor and another Vs. Mansur AU Than. wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that the release of the property should be done for good reasons and that also upon a minimum condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee as contemplated under the Act itself. 7. Section 63 of the Forest Act states as follows: “Section 63- Power to release property seized under section 62 Any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Forest Ranger who, or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats. vehicles or cattle under section 62 may, subject to section 71G release the same on, production of a Bank guarantee equal to the A -6- value as estimated by such officer (which shall be renewable from time to time till the final disposal of the criminal proceedings instituted in respect of the alleged offence) and onJ the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production of the property so released if and when so required before the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure had been made.’ 8. The provision for furnishing of Bank Guarantee has been inserted in the main Act with effect from 11.05.1998 by Act No.12/1998. Therefore, the said provision is mandatory insofar as the release of forest produce is concerned, insofar as the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the property is not liable for confiscation, is a matter of evidence and ultimately, if it is found that the property is not liable for confiscation, the said order vill definitely enure to e -7- the benefit of the petitioners. However, at this stage, it cannot be decided as to whether the property is a forest produce or not within the meaning of the definitions of the Forest Act. Hence 1 do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 9. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sci/. RIDGE gab