LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus K.A. KUNCHINDAMMED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF KARNATAKA v. K.A. KUNCHINDAMMED APRIL 16, 2002 B [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 Ss.2(7), 2(18), 62(3)(a) and (b), 65 and 71-A-Forest produce-11/egal- C transportation of-Seizure of-Power to pass interim order of release- ,'. Sandalwood oil-Seized alongwith vehicle illegally transporting it-Nobody claimed the seized articles-Authorised Officer ordered confiscation of sandalwood oil and vehicle-Confiscation confirmed and published in official .gazette-Later, owner of vehicle applied to Judicial Magistrate for interim D custody of vehicle-Application dismissed holding that power to grant interim custody vested in Authorised Officer-Sessions Judge, in revision upheld the view-High Court in exercise of powers under s.482 Cr.P.C. directed Judicial Magistrate to dispose of application on merits holding that Magistrate concerned had jurisdiction t9 consider request for custody of vehicle-Held, in view of the definition of 'sandalwood' in s.2(18) including 'sandalwood oil' E within the term 'sandalwood', wherever the term 'sandalwood' is used in the Act, it has to be urzd.erstood in terms of the definition in s.2(18)-Accordingly 'sandalwood oil' is also included within the purview of ss. 71-A, 71-C, 71-D and 71-G.-The Magistrate and the Sessions Judge were right in holding that the Authorised Officer, and not the Magistrate, was vested with the power to F pass order of interim custody of the vehicle-Besides, order of confiscation having not been challenged, has attained finality-Order of High Court set aside-Words and Phrases-'Sandalwood'-'Sandalwood Oi/'-Explained G H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .12.2000 of the Kamataka High Court in Crl. R. No. 3670 of 2000. Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General (A.C.) and N. Ganpathy for the A, Appellant. 162 • STATE Of KARNATAKA v. KA KUNCHINDAMMED [D.P. MOHAPATRA,J.] 163 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is-which authority has the power to pass order for interim release of the forest produce seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963? (for short 'the Act'). Is it the B Authorized Officer under the Act or the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure? .. The facts of the case relevant for appreciating the question may be stated thus: c A lorry bearing registration No. KL-IO-J-1728 carrying 5 barrels of sandalwood oil weighing 136.5 kgs. was seized by the officials of the Forest Mobile Squad, Udupi on 2nd of March 2000 on the allegation of illegal transportation of the forest produce. FIR No. 08437 OR No. 108/99-2000 was registered on the same day. On 3rd March, 2000 a report about the D seizure was submitted to the Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kundapur, under section 71A of the Act. By order of the Authorised ,... Officer dated 7th March, 2000 custody of the seized material and the vehicle was entrusted to the Range Forest Officer, Udupi as whereabouts of the driver of the vehicle and its owner were not known to the Authorised Officer. Attempts were made to get the particulars from office of the Regional Transport E Authority (RTA) concerned in the State of Kerala. Having failed to get any response from the RTO the Authorised Officer got published a notice on 3 lst August, 2000 for information of all concerned particularly, the persons interested in the goods seized. The notice was published in the daily newspaper 'Udayavani' on 18.9.2000. Nobody came forward to claim eitherthe seized F "' sandalwood· oil or the vehicle. Thereafter the authorized officer by order dated 31.10.2000 ordered confiscation of the seized vehicle and sandalwood oil. The said order was published in the official gazette on 9th November, 2000 and also published in the newspaper 'Udayavani' on 15.11.2000. The order was not challenged in appeal under section 71-D of the Act or in any other proceeding. The order of confiscation stood confirmed under Section G 71-F of the Act. The order of confiscation as confirmed was then. published in the official gazette on 4th January, 2001. .l< The owner of the vehicle, who is the respondent herein, filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate !st class, Udupi for interim custody of the vehicle in question in Crime No. 108/99-2000. The learne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.