IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 540 of 2008(L) ------------------------ CMP.3087/2007 of J.M.F.C.,PEERUMEDU .................... PETITIONER: ------------ FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ERUMELY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORESTS) SRI. RENJITH THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- THAMIZHAMANI, W/O.KALIAPPAN, NALUKANDAM BHAGOM, MANCHUMALA, PEERMADE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.P.P.BIJU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No.540 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The respondent's vehicle was intercepted by the Sales Tax officials. It was found out that at the time of interception, the vehicle was carrying some logs of rose wood. The seizure was on 11/5/07. The Sales Tax officials handed over the vehicle to the police and the police produced the same before the learned Magistrate. It was revealed that an offence under the Kerala Forest Act was committed in respect of the logs of rose wood transported in the vehicle. The vehicle was produced before the learned Magistrate. It was handed over to the custody of the forest officials. 2. The respondent approached the learned Magistrate with an application under Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate W.P.(c) No.540 of 2008 -: 2 :- directed the release of the vehicle to the respondent herein. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order and has come before this Court with this writ petition. 3. What is the grievance? Two grievances are raised by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State/petitioner. It is contended that the proceedings under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act have been initiated and release of the vehicle to the respondent before completion of the proceedings under Sec.61A is not justified. Secondly it is contended relying on the decision in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan (AIR 2000 SC 2729) that, at any rate, the learned Magistrate must have insisted on production of, at least, a bank guarantee by the respondent. For both reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, it is contended. 4. It is not in serious dispute now that on the date of the application by the respondent and on the date on which the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate no proceedings under Sec.61A had commenced. The seizure was on 11/5/07. The impugned order was passed on 12/12/07. This writ petition was filed on 3/1/08. Till the date of filing of this W.P.(c) No.540 of 2008 -: 3 :- writ petition or even till 6/3/08, admittedly no show cause notice under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act had been issued. The learned Magistrate is duty bound to imbibe the spirit of expedition which the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) wanted the subordinate courts to imbibe. In these circumstances, the objections raised on the first ground cannot at all be accepted. 5. The learned Magistrate is totally justified notwithstanding the fact that proceedings under Sec.61A were contemplated in directing release of the vehicle without leaving it exposed to sun and rain in the custody of the court and the officials concerned. 6. Next contention is that the bank guarantee should have been insisted. What sort of guarantee must be insisted is to be considered and decided by the court concerned on the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, the decision referred above indicates that the courts must insist on proper and strict condition when it comes to commission of offences punishable under the Forest Act and the confiscation proceedings emanating from such infraction of the proceedings under the W.P.(c) No.540 of 2008 -: 4 :- Forest Act. All the various concerns and requirements have to be balanced and a proper decision has to be taken in the matter. 7. I note that the court below had directed that the vehicle can be released to the registered owner on condition that he executes a bond with two solvent sureties for the like sum and on condition that the vehicle shall not alienated and shall be produced before the confiscating authority. 8. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the conditions imposed are absolutely sufficient and satisfactory and it is not necessary to impose any further conditions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. I need only mention that the authorised officer under Sec.61A can complete the proceedings expeditiously and, if and once final orders directing confiscation is passed, can direct the respondent to produce the vehicle before such authority. If the petitioner does not produce the vehicle before such authority, the authorised officer can certainly move for enforcement of the bond executed before the learned Magistrate. 9. It is complained that the vehicle has not been released W.P.(c) No.540 of 2008 -: 5 :- so far even though directions were issued as early as on 12/12/07 and the bond has been executed as directed. I direct that the vehicle shall be released to the respondent within a period of 15 days if he has already executed the bond and release orders is issued by the learned Magistrate. 10. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge