IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1171 of 2009 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.13098/2009 Dated 26/05/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR,FOREST DIVISION, KODANAD. 3. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KALADY FOREST RANGE. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.PAULOSE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- K.D.VARGHESE, S/O. AUGUSTY, KOORAN HOUSE, MATTOOR,KALADY.P.O., ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 13098 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1171 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No. 13098 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. The State of Kerala has filed W.A.No.1171 of 2009 challenging the order dated 26.5.2009 in W.P.(C) No.13098 of 2009 releasing the electric motor belonging to the writ petitioner seized in respect of a forest offence in O.R.No.3 of 2009. 2. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) submits before us that in the light of the pronouncement of the apex Court in the case of Section Forestor & another v. Mansur Alikhan (2004) 1 SCC 293, there were no special or exceptional reasons for the learned Single Judge to release the electric motor involved in a forest offence. 3. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned W.A.NO.1171 of 2009 - 2 - counsel for the writ petitioner that merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, confiscation and prosecution has been launched against the writ petitioner. 4. On going through the impugned order and the law declared by the apex Court in respect of release of goods confiscated in criminal cases, in our view, the learned Single Judge was not justified in ordering release of the electric motor without any exceptional circumstances and as such it is necessary to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, we direct the second respondent Divisional Forest Officer to complete the entire proceedings including that under Section 61 of the Kerala Forest Act expeditiously and at any rate within four weeks from today. It is made clear that if the proceedings are not completed within the time limit prescribed by this Court, the seized article will be returned back to the owner subject to his furnishing security to the W.A.NO.1171 of 2009 - 3 - satisfaction of the second respondent. The writ petitioner will co- operate with the second respondent for completing the proceedings. The writ petitioner shall appear before the second respondent on 15.06.2009. In case notice under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act has not so far been served on him the same will be served on his appearance before the second respondent either on 15.6.2009 or on an earlier date. The writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of as above. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns