- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8100 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100213 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAMAKRISHNA S/O. SHIVAPPA KORVAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: NEAR SONAPUR HILL, HUBBALLI ROAD, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS RANGE FOREST OFFICER, BANAVASI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. RANGE FOREST OFFICER AND DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, SIRSI DIVISIONA, SIRSI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2012 PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SIRSI DIVISION IN FOREST CRIME NO.12/2002-03/DATED 02.11.2002 BY CONFISCATION VEHICLE OF THE PETITIONER BEARING REG. NO.KA- 31/1506 AND WHICH CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8100 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2019 JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI IN CR. A. NO.157/2012 AND RELEASE THE SAID VEHICLE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Regional Forest Officer, Sirsi, confiscating the vehicle, and the subsequent order dated 04.06.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.157/2012, whereby the order of confiscation was confirmed. 2. The case of the respondent-State is that the revision petitioner is the owner of the goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-31/1506. On 02.11.2012 at about 8:45 p.m., while the officers of the respondent-Department were on patrol in their official vehicle bearing registration No. KA-31/G-84 near Gonagatta Cross, they intercepted the said truck for inspection. Upon inspection, it was found that the truck was transporting 9 logs of rosewood. The driver of the truck did not possess any permit or licence authorising the transportation of rosewood logs. Consequently, the respondent authorities seized the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8100 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2019 rosewood logs along with the vehicle by drawing a mahazar. The ownership of the vehicle was ascertained through the records of the Regional Transport Office, and proceedings under Sections 71A to 71G of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) were initiated. 3. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, an order of confiscation was passed by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of confiscation. 4. Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that the truck in question was entrusted to the driver for the purpose of transporting stones. However, the driver, without the knowledge or permission of the revision petitioner, transported rosewood logs. It is contended that the confiscation of the vehicle owned by the revision petitioner, for an offence allegedly committed by the driver, is unjustified. It is further submitted that the criminal case registered against the driver has ended in acquittal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8100 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2019 5. Per contra, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submits that the involvement of the truck in the commission of the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the ownership of the vehicle and its involvement in the offence are not disputed by the owner. It is also submitted that the knowledge or otherwise of the owner regarding the use of the vehicle in the forest offence is immaterial once it is established that the vehicle was involved in a violation of the provisions of the Act. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the records. 7. The competent authority and the appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings that the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-31/1506 was found transporting rosewood logs on 12.11.2012 at about 8:45 p.m., and that the said transportation was carried out without obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authority. This factual aspect is not seriously disputed by the revision petitioner. The sole contention raised by the revision petitioner is that the driver - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8100 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2019 was not authorised to transport rosewood logs and that such transportation was done without his knowledge or consent. It is contended that for an offence committed by the driver, the vehicle owned by the petitioner cannot be subjected to seizure and confiscation. It is further submitted that the driver has been acquitted of the charges in the criminal case. 8. The competent authority examined 3 witnesses in support of its case. From the evidence of PW-1, the panch witness, the case of the competent authority stands established. PW-2 is the Forest Guard who was part of the team that inspected and seized the vehicle. PW-3 is the Assistant Conservator of Forests. All three witnesses have given a detailed account of the incident. Though the defence has extensively cross-examined them, the testimony of these witnesses has remained consistent and unshaken. 9. The contention of the revision petitioner is that he had not consented to the transportation of rosewood logs. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Sections 62 and 71A of the Act. 10. Section 62 of the Act mandates that when a forest offence has been committed, the competent authority is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8100 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2019 empowered to confiscate the forest produce or timber, along with the vehicles used in the commission of such offence. When a Forest Officer seizes a vehicle in exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Act, the competent authority is vested with the jurisdiction to pass an order of confiscation under Section 71A of the Act. 11. A careful perusal of Sections 62 and 71A of the Act makes it clear that upon commission of an offence as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 62, the competent authority is empowered to seize the property involved. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that there is no scope for raising a plea that the offence was committed without the knowledge of the owner. 12. What is required to be proved and established is the involvement of the vehicle in the commission of an act that is prohibited under the Act. It stands admitted and has been duly established by the competent authority that the transportation of rosewood logs was carried out without any valid permits. It is also not the case of the revision petitioner that the timber in question is not the property of the Government. In the absence - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8100 CRL.RP No. 100213 of 2019 of any plea or evidence to the contrary, it cannot be inferred that the seized rosewood logs do not constitute forest produce or that they are not the property of the Government. The competent authority as well as the appellate Court, upon appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence on record, have rightly concluded that an offence under Section 62 of the Act was committed and have, accordingly, ordered confiscation. 13. This Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and the concurrent findings recorded by the competent authority and the appellate Court, is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. Both orders are supported by the evidence on record, and no ground is made out warranting interference. Even upon independent examination, this Court finds that the orders are well-reasoned and do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE NAA CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2