- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2397 CRL.RP No. 100472 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100472 OF 2024 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SUBHASH S/O. YALLAPPA KAMMAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KAVALVADA, HALIYAL (U.K.)-581329. … PETITIONER (BY SRI R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (RANGE FOREST OFFICER, HALIYAL), R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. … RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.05.2024, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.5006/2024, ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KARWAR, (SITTING AT SIRSI) AT SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA, IMPOSING A CONDITION TO FURNISH BANK GUARANTEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,65,000/- BE MODIFIED AND THE PETITIONER BE DIRECTED TO FURNISH INDEMNITY FOR THE LIKE SUM AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2025.02.10 14:38:01 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2397 CRL.RP No. 100472 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This revision petition is filed seeking modification of impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Karwar sitting at Sirsi (‘Appellate Court’, for short) in Crl.A.no.5006/2024 imposing condition on petitioner to furnish bank guarantee to tune of Rs.4,65,000/-. 2. Sri RH Angadi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is a registered owner of Tractor bearing no.KA-65/T-1920 which was seized by Range Forest Officer, Haliyal in connection with FIR no.1/2023-24 on 15.08.2023 for offences punishable under Sections 24 (E), 50 (2) (B), 71 (A) (G) and 80 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. It was submitted, petitioner had filed an application for release of said vehicle before Forest Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, Uttara Kannada, but it was rejected by order dated 27.12.2023 in proceedings no.B2/KA-65/T-1920/CR-15/2023-24. Aggrieved by rejection of application, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal no.5006/2024 before Appellate Court. It was submitted, though - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2397 CRL.RP No. 100472 of 2024 appeal came to be allowed by order dated 06.05.2024 order for release of vehicle was passed subject to conditions as follows: “1. The appellant shall furnish bank guarantee for the. sum of Rs.4,65,000/- and shall execute bond for production of the vehicle in question before the Magistrate as and when directed, before the RFO., Halyal. 2. On production of bank guarantee and execution of the bond, the RFO., Halyal shall release the Jhon Deere Tractor bearing Regn. No. KA/65T/1920 in favour of the appellant. 3. While releasing the vehicle in question, the RFO., Halyal shall prepare the panchanama and shall take the photographs of the vehicle in question. 4. The appellant shall not alter the appearance of the vehicle in question or shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the case in Cr. No.1/2023-24 of R.F.O., Halyal without the permission of the Trial Court. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.” 3. It was submitted, petitioner was aggrieved by order insofar as condition requiring petitioner to furnish bank guarantee. Relying upon decision of this Court in case of K.M. Sameer v. Deputy Range Forest Officer and another in W.P.no.1905/2023, disposed of on 30.01.2023, learned counsel sought for allowing revision petition by relaxing condition permitting release of petitioner’s vehicle on furnishing of indemnity bond for said amount. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2397 CRL.RP No. 100472 of 2024 4. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. 5. At outset, it is seen order impugned was passed by learned District Judge in an appeal under Section 71A of Forest Act against an order passed by trial Court on application for release filed under Section 63 of Forest Act, which reads as under: “63. Power to release property seized under section 62.—Any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Forest Ranger who, or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats, vehicles or cattle [under section 62 may, subject to section 71-G release] the same on, [production of a Bank guarantee equal to the value as estimated by such officer (which shall be renewable from time to time till the final disposal of the criminal proceedings instituted in respect of the alleged offence) and on] the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production of the property so released if and when so required before the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure had been made.” 6. In said provision requirement of production of bank guarantee was inserted by Act no.12 of 1998 with effect from - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2397 CRL.RP No. 100472 of 2024 11.05.1998. Said amendment makes it mandatory for furnishing of bank guarantee. This Court in case of K.Ekambaram Reddy v. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bangalore Urban Division, Bangalore and another reported in (2007) 5 KLJ 112 as well as State by Assistant Conservatory of Forests, Shikaripur Sub-Division Shikaripur and another v. Ziaulla reported in (2002) 3 KLJ 269 has held condition to be mandatory. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Section Forester and another v. Mansur Ali Khan reported in (2004) 1 SCC 293 has held relaxation with condition of furnishing of bank guarantee by High Court was unjustified by holding that release of vehicle during pendency of proceedings though permissible, same should be for good reasons and that to upon a ‘minimum condition of furnishing bank guarantee’ as contemplated under the Act itself. Reference was made to earlier decision (also under Karnataka Forests Act) in case of State of Karnataka v. K.Krishnan reported in (2002) 7 SCC 80. Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh connected matters reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733 has held proceedings under Forest Act are distinct from criminal - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2397 CRL.RP No. 100472 of 2024 prosecution insofar as confiscation, seizure and release of property and held specific provisions under special enactment i.e. Forest Act should be applied. 7. In view of above, decisions relied upon by petitioner would pale into insignificance. Consequently, I do not find any merit in revision petition. Accordingly, following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30