criwp592.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 592 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. PETITIONER VERSUS Baburao Motiram Jadhav .. RESPONDENT Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the State. Mr. V.P. Deshmukh, advocate h/f Mr. Amol Gandhi, advocate for respondent. ===== CORAM : A.V. POTDAR DATE :19 th OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : 1. By present criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Forest department through the Assistant Conservator of Forest has questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed in Criminal Appeal no. 95/2009 dated 24-3-2011, returning the vehicle involved in Crime No. 34/2008 in favour of respondent herein. 2. Heard learned APP for the State so also learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the record. It appears that the vehicle in criwp592.11 2 question was seized in connection with Crime No. 34/2008 by the forest officer. It appears that the owner of the vehicle has filed an application before the Forest Officer as notice was issued to him under section 61(a) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, about confiscation proceeding to be initiated in respect of the said vehicle. Accordingly, order came to be passed that the forest products so also the vehicle in question used for transportation of the forest products to be seized by the order of the Forest Officer dated 26-3-2009. It appears that the owner of the vehicle preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 28/2009 before the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded. Learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 17-8-2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Assistant Conservator ( JKSS ), Kinwat by order dated 26-3-2009. Vide said order order of confiscation of the vehicle bearing no. MH 26/H 2842 was set aside on condition that the appellant shall execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with a further condition not to alienate the vehicle till final disposal of the case. Further condition was imposed that the owner of the vehicle shall produce the vehicle during trial as and when required by the trial Court. It appears that the Assistant Conservator of Forest ( JKSS ) Kinwat, Dist. Nanded, questioned the legality and correctness of this order before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench by judgment and order criwp592.11 3 dated 29-9-2009 decided Criminal Writ Petition no. 844/2009 filed by the petitioner herein who was also petitioner in the said petition. It is to be noted that while disposing said writ petition, the matter was remitted back to the Conservator of Forest under the provisions of Forest Act. At the same time, in paragraph No. 9 of the order, the Division Bench passed the following order : On furnishing undertaking to the Assistant Conservator of Forest, the vehicle shall be released in favour of registered owner / respondent no. 1, forthwith. . Accordingly, the matter was remitted back to the competent authority appointed under the Forest Act. After remand, the competent authority passed the order of confiscation of the said vehicle which order is again challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal no. 95/2009 which came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 24-3-2011. It is observed in the said order that while releasing the vehicle in question to the owner, condition incorporated in the aforesaid order shall remain intact till determination of the criminal trial and with this observation the appeal came to be allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be returned to the original owner i.e. respondent in the present writ petition. 3. It is curious to note that for the observations in paragraph no. 9 in the criwp592.11 4 judgment of the Division Bench, the Division Bench in unambiguous words passed order to return the vehicle to the registered owner which order in turn was passed by the appellate court while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 95/2009. Thus, I do not find any illegality committed by the court below while passing the order of return of vehicle on the conditions imposed at the earliest and, if the vehicle was returned on condition to produce before the court below as and when required on execution of requisite bond, this order does not appear to be contrary to the law. In the light of this, no interference is required in the order impugned at the hands of this Court. In the result, writ petition being sans any merit, stands rejected. ( A.V. POTDAR ) JUDGE dyb