1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 306/1996 Saifi Kurban Hussein Bohari, Age : 35 years, Occu. Trade R/o Taloda Tq. Taloda, Dist. Dhule. ...Petitioner. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2 Vasudeo Vishramani Kulmethe, Jt. Vanasanrakshak (Society), Uttar Dhule. ..Respondents. Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J Date : 30th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar dated 18/04/1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 7/1991 dismissing the appeal filed by the present applicant. The applicant was owner of certain vehicle. This vehicle was used for transportation of 128 logs of teak wood, from a protected forest illegally. The vehicle and the persons carrying the logs were intercepted on 30/09/1986 and the vehicle in question was seized under the provisions of Section 62 of Indian Foreign Act. The applicant was given notice to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated. The Range Forest Officer, Shahada passed the order confiscating the vehicle under Section 61-A (3) of the Indian Forest Act. 2 2 As against this, the applicant went in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, at Nandurbar under Section 61-D of the Indian Forest Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of confiscating the vehicle. During the pendency of these proceedings, the vehicle in question was released on the applicants’ executing a bond of Rs.75,000/- and on furnishing a surety in the like amount. After the appeal was dismissed, the applicant was directed to produce the vehicle. After this order was passed, the present revision was filed in 1996 and an order of stay to the execution of the order was obtained. With the result, the vehicle on one hand remained in use of the applicant and on the other hand, the order of confiscation of the vehicle remained in abeyance. 3 Having gone through the orders below, I find no illegality committed by the Court below while passing such orders. The Court below rightly came to a conclusion that the logs of teak wood were illegally cut from the forest area and were being transported out of the forest area. As I was about the dismiss the criminal revision application, I asked the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant as to whether after so many years, his client would be in a position to produce vehicle in question. I thought by this time, the vehicle in question would have been destroyed or would have been rendered useless. As expected, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant confessed that during last 14 years, the vehicle got destroyed. He said, when it was kept aside for repairs, its vital parts were stolen away and subsequently her client was required to sell the remains of the vehicle as scrap to meet the expenses for urgent family needs. This information is given to the Court on instructions. In view of this and in view of the pendency of the Criminal revision application for such long time, it is rather unjustifiable to ask the applicant to deposit the bond amount of Rs.75,000/- instead of producing the vehicle. Instead of, it would be appropriate if the amount of bond is reduced and the applicant is directed to pay a smaller amount. 3 ORDER The Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the amount of bond is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- and the petitioner shall deposit said amount in the lower appellate Court, on or before 22nd November, 2010. A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ts k/ok