Supreme Court: In an appeal challenging order passed by Kerala High Court on 2-09-2010 allowing the respondent’s revision petition and directing the release of their rosewood logs and lorry and keeping it open for appellants to act appropriately as per law regarding seized property, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal*, JJ. noted the State’s submissions that the seized material was already sold by the State and directed the High Court to examine the matter afresh.
Material Facts
As per facts, the officers of Forest Department stopped a lorry which when inspected was found to be carrying illicit rosewood logs, 37 such logs being found beneath 92 bunches of bananas and 26 bags of rice husk. The material so seized was produced before the Wildlife Warden by the Assistant Wildlife Warden, who then asked him to conduct an enquiry regarding the seized material. A detailed Mahazar was prepared on 10-08-2004 – “The Mahazar, in law, is an attested document by several persons professing to be aware of the circumstances of the case and submitted with their signatures. The Mahazar as defined in the Wilson’s Glossary, would be a document attested by several persons professing to be cognizant of the circumstances of the case and submitted with their signatures to the Court. It could also be a written collective attestation by several persons jointly and the list or roll of persons present.” as explained in Bengaluru Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5289 and K.N. Anandarama Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 13572.
The enquiry revealed that rosewood logs were cut from the forest of Shrimangala and the lorry was coming from Kutta side of Karnataka. The material loaded shown at the check post on Kutta side on 8-08-2004 was bunches of bananas and bags of rice husk, and the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of detention was different from the one at the check post earlier. The material was seized to be confiscated and the Wildlife Warden’s order dated 27-06-2005 recorded that “the rosewood logs were government property, and the vehicle was being used in commission of offence of illicit transport of forest produce.” The said order was appealed against before the District Judge under Section 61-D of Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’), which was dismissed through order dated 2-06-2007. When such dismissal was challenged before the High Court, the rosewood logs and lorry were directed to be returned to the then petitioners.
Information on Seized Material
It was submitted by the State Counsel that the release may not be possible at that stage because the rosewood logs being perishable were sold on 17-04-2008 after the Wildlife Warden’s order was confirmed by the District Judge, and the lorry being sold on 10-06-2009 in furtherance of government order dated 5-01-2009 for selling of confiscated vehicles which were lying parked in the Police Stations, and therefore, neither lorry nor the goods could be released.
Court’s View
The Court expressed that the instant matter did not require detailed examination by the Court at this stage since neither the lorry nor the rosewood logs were available as they were sold by the state and the amount was lying with the exchequer and could not be returned back if the High Court’s order was upheld. The Court regarded the same to be a lapse on part of the state for not apprising the High Court of the true and up-to-date facts at the time of final hearing and remitted the matter back to the High Court for being examined afresh.
The Court also made it clear that if the arguments raised by the respondents were accepted, they would be entitled to receive the amount collected by the State after the sale of rosewood logs and the lorry. It further the High Court to take up the matter expeditiously and examine the desirability of awarding interest from the date the amount was credited to the State exchequer on account of the sale of lorry and rosewood logs.
[Wild Life Warden v. K.K. Moideen, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 959, decided on 9-08-2023]
Judgment authored by: Justice Rajesh Bindal
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellants: Senior Advocate K.N. Balgopal, Advocate on Record C. K. Sasi, Advocate Meena K. Poulose;
For Respondents: Advocate on Record K. Rajeev, Advocate Shinoj K. Narayanan, Advocate Niveditha R. Menon, Advocate Aditya Verma.
