IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25402 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/07/2009 IN IA 277/2009 IN CMA.37/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.SHEKARAN, KALLAYIMMAL, KOTTANADU POST, MEPPADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MEPPADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WAYANAD DIVISION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) MR.P.M. POULOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25402 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed against the order passed in an interlocutory application by the learned District Judge, Kalpatta. The petitioner who suffered an order of confiscation of his vehicle in proceedings initiated under the Kerala Forest Act, preferred an appeal under Section 61(D) of the above Act before the District Judge, Kalpatta. The petitioner had moved for an interim custody of that vehicle before the criminal court in which parallel proceedings continued over the forest offence involved and the Magistrate has passed an order directing release of the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Though the bank guarantee was furnished, it is submitted, in revision, the Sessions Judge set W.P.(C).No.25402 OF 2009 Page numbers aside that order for releasing the vehicle. The vehicle which is ordered to be confiscated is still under the custody of the Forest Department. 2. The application moved in appeal for releasing the vehicle was disposed vide Ext.P4 order by the learned District Judge directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.4,00,000/- with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpatta and also to produce a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. A further condition was also imposed that the vehicle should be produced before the court or the forest officer as and when directed. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition. 3. Special Government Pleader (Forest) has taken notice for the respondents. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and W.P.(C).No.25402 OF 2009 Page numbers circumstances presented, I find that the conditions imposed for releasing of the vehicle under interim custody till disposal of the appeal are too onerous. Value of the vehicle alone need be considered for the purpose of fixing the security for its release on interim custody. The direction issued to execute the bond before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not correct. Section 61(D) of the Forest Act contemplates of a statutory appeal against an order of confiscation passed by the Forest Officer. It is independent of and distinct from, the criminal proceeding initiated in respect of the forest offence relating to the cutting, removal, transportation etc. of the forest produce involving a vehicle. So much so, when an appeal is preferred under Section 61(D) of the Forest Act any bond is ordered its execution must be before the appellate court in which the appeal is presented against the confiscation order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the W.P.(C).No.25402 OF 2009 Page numbers value of the vehicle has been assessed at Rs.7,00,000/- which is not disputed. In modification of the order passed by the learned District Judge I direct the petitioner to furnish security for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for interim custody of the vehicle till the disposal of the appeal. Petitioner is allowed to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the rest by producing title deeds over immovable property, which is free from encumbrance, having the value of not less than Rs.4,00,000/-, towards the security ordered. He shall also furnish an undertaking before the court that the vehicle will be kept in roadworthy condition and it will be produced as and when directed by the court till the disposal of the appeal. If any bank guarantee has been produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, petitioner can apply for and get it back, provided there no order had been passed by the court for its retention and custody in connection with any other W.P.(C).No.25402 OF 2009 Page numbers proceeding. Writ petition is disposed as above. 4. Hand over a copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv