Judgment:
Criminal Appeal No.591 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4460 of
2004)
Tarun Chatterjee, J
- Leave granted.
By an order dated
13th of September, 2004, delay of 265 days in filing SLP was condoned by
this Court and thereafter notice was issued.
This appeal is
preferred against the judgment and order dated 9th of July, 2003 passed
by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.495 of
2001 by which an order dated 13th of February, 2001 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, XIXth Court at Bangalore City in Criminal
Appeal No.45 of 1996 was affirmed.
Based on an information regarding forest offence and smuggling of
sandalwood, the Inspector of Police, Siddapur Police Station, Bangalore,
seized lorry bearing No. CAM 5589 on 28th March, 1995 together with
sandalwood weighing about 2,435 Kg. As per the provisions of the
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, the seized materials and the lorry were
produced before the Authorised Officer Deputy Conservator of Forests.
The Authorised
Officer, who was the competent authority under the Forest Act, initiated
a confiscation proceeding under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963 and by an order dated 28th of February, 1996 he passed an
order confiscating the Sandalwood involved in the offence and also the
lorry bearing number CAM 5589. The said order of confiscation was
challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal before the Additional
Sessions Judge, XIXth Court, Bangalore which was allowed by the learned
Sessions Judge by order dated 13th of February, 2001. Feeling aggrieved
by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the Authorised Officer
and Deputy Conservator of Forest and the State of Karnataka filed a
Criminal Revision Petition No.495 of 2001 before the High Court.
The aforesaid
criminal revision petition was dismissed by the High Court only on the
ground that the same was not maintainable in law in the absence of the
State of Karnataka being made a party. That is to say the High Court was
of the opinion that the Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of
Forest was not competent to prefer the criminal revision application
without obtaining necessary sanction from the State of Karnataka against
the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore and therefore the
State of Karnataka was a necessary and proper party to file the criminal
revision case and accordingly the criminal revision at the instance of
Deputy Conservator of Forest only must be held to be not maintainable in
law.
Aggrieved by this
order of the High Court, the instant special leave petition was filed
which on grant of leave was heard in the presence of the learned counsel
for the parties.
We have heard the
learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and
other materials on record. Having looked into the records of this case,
we find that the State of Karnataka was made petitioner No.2 before the
High Court in the criminal revision case. During the pendency of the
special leave petition this Court, an application for amendment of the
cause title of the special leave petition has also been filed in which
the following prayer has been made : "The State of Karnataka be
represented by Principal Secretary, Forest, Environment and Ecology
Department, M.S. Building, Bangalore."
Considering that the
State of Karnataka had also in fact challenged the order of the learned
Sessions Judge, Bangalore in the aforesaid criminal revision petition in
which it was petitioner no.2, there was no reason for the High Court to
dismiss the criminal revision petition on the ground aforementioned. In
view of the above, we also allow the prayer for amendment made by the
appellant during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, we allow the
application for amendment and direct the department to incorporate the
amendment.
For the reasons
aforesaid, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and
restore the criminal revision petition to the file of the High Court and
request the High Court to decide the same at an early date preferably
within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order. No order as to costs.
Print This Judgment
|