K. SALALUDEEN v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, writ petition is disposed of directingthe second respondent, the District Officer, to completethe confiscation proceedings arising fromO
Provisions considered
Judgment
V.GIRI, J-------------------W.P.(C).34589/2008--------------------Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008JUDGMENTPetitioners 1 to 3 are the registered owners ofcertain vehicles, details of which are referred to in Exts.P1 to P3. Fourth petitioner has been conducting asawmill at Manjappra in Ittiva Grama Panchayat. Itseems that the third respondent registered O.R.No.26/2008 under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, against10 persons including petitioners 2 and 4, on theallegation that the accused therein have cut andremoved three teak trees from the forest under Chithara North Section of Kulathupuzha Range and thesame has been sold to one Sadique. Sadique loadedthe above teak woods in the lorry of the first petitioner. Similar is the allegation in relation to the vehicles ofpetitioners 2 and 3 as well, in as much as that Sadiquewas responsible for the registration of offence. Inanother words, according to petitioners 1 to 3, theirvehicles were misused by another person, withouttheir knowledge.
Operative part
W.P.(C).34589/200822.Learned Government Pleader submits thatconfiscation proceedings under Section 61A of the ForestAct are underway both in relation to the consignment asalso in relation to three vehicles, involved thereinpursuant to registration of offence, O.R.26/2008. Inthese circumstances, learned counsel for the petitionersprays for interim custody of the vehicles. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of releasingvehicles involved in forest offences on interim custody, pending finalization of the confiscation proceedings. Government Pleader further submits that it isappropriate that the confiscation proceedings arecompleted at the earliest, and it may not be appropriateto direct the respondents to release the vehicles oninterim custody pending confiscation proceedings. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directingthe second respondent, the District Officer, to completethe confiscation proceedings arising fromO.R.No.26/2008 of Kulathupuzha Range, as early as W.P.(C).34589/20083possible, at any rate, within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Vehicles claimed by petitioners 1 to 3 shall be releasedto them subject to the decision taken on completion ofthe confiscation proceedings. 5. In so far as the sawmill articles claimed by thefourth petitioner are concerned, release of the sameshall also be subject to the completion of theconfiscation proceedings, as is directed to be done in thecase of the vehicles as well. If the confiscationproceedings are not completed within theaforementioned period of three months, then vehiclesas also the sawmill article claimed by petitioners 1 to 3and the fourth petitioner respectively, shall be releasedto them on them furnishing bank guarantee for suchamount as is deemed appropriate by the Forest Officials.V.GIRI,Judgemrcs
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, writ petition is disposed of directingthe second respondent, the District Officer, to completethe confiscation proceedings arising fromO
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 03 Dec 2008. The bench was V GIRI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.