IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision 251 of 2010 Date of Decision 22nd June ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Lavlesh Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl.A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, and Mr.Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. _____________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J(oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Dalhousie, Forest Division, Dalhousie confiscating jeep No. HP-48-2064 which according to the respondent was being used for transporting 573 pieces of maple timber alongwith six axes. FIR 39/08 dated 27.3.2008 was reigstered with the police. Proceedings under Section 52-A of Indian Forest (H.P. Second 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Amendment) Act, 1991 were initiated. On the points formulated for adjudication, the officer found that the timber was in fact seized from the jeep/offending vehicle and the officer proceeded to pass an order of confiscation of the offending vehicle. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, who by a detailed order, dismissed the appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the vehicle, which was bought by the owner (the petitioner herein) is a second hand vehicle, will turn to junk in case it is not maintained. The petitioner will undertake to produce the vehicle in any criminal proceedings which may be pending with respect to the offences, subject matter of this petition. He submits that the petitioner will furnish security to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the judgment of both the Courts below. Prima facie, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Officer as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, rather they have acted in consonance with the statutory mandate. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I direct that this is a fit case in which the jeep can be released in order to save it from turning into junk. It is further directed: (a) that the petitioner shall furnish solevant security/guarantee in the sum of ` 3 lacs to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba undertaking to produce 3 the vehicle in question in any criminal proceedings out of which this present case arises; (b) the petitioner shall also undertake that he shall not dispossess, transfer, alienate the vehicle in question in any manner whatsoever or sell it till the final disposal of the criminal proceedings; (c) in the event of violation of these conditions, the security of ` 3 lacs shall stand forfeitted to the State. Such security shall be furnished within a period of four weeks from today. Petition stands disposed of. June 22nd, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4