- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.48 OF 2026 BETWEEN: RENIL @ RINIL C S/O CHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O MANNAYADA, NETTARU POST TALACHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT KERALA - 670 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MADIKERI DIVISION KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 201 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.10.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI IN CRL.A NO.46/2025 (ANNEXURE-B) IN SO FAR AS IT DISMISSES THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMS CONFISCATION OF EICHER LORRY BEARING REG NO.KL- 58-J-7048 AND SET ASIDE THE CONFISCATION ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MADIKERI DIVISION MADIKERI IN A4/FOC/VAHANA/CR/ 7/2021-22 (ANNEXURE-A) AND DIRECT THE Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 RELEASE OF THE SAID VEHICLE TO THE PETITIONER FREE FROM CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE CONDITIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to set- aside the judgment and order dated 25.10.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.46/2025 by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri and the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, Madikeri Division, Madikeri, in proceedings bearing No.A4/FOC/Vahana/CR-07/2021-22. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.07.2021 at about 09.30 a.m., PW1 – Vinaya Krishna, Deputy Range Forest Officer, Sampaje, received information from his forest guard that he had intercepted a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-58-J-7048 which was coming from Madikeri side towards Sampaje check - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 post and had found wooden logs illegally being transported in the said vehicle. Immediately thereafter, PW1 along with staff rushed to Sampaje check post and after inspecting the aforesaid vehicle which contained rosewood logs hidden under vegetable bags, made an enquiry with the driver and cleaner of the said vehicle and subsequently, FIR was registered in FOC No.7/2-21-22 against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 62, 71A, 80 and 104A of the Karnataka Act pertaining to violation of Sections 127A, 144 and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules. The lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-58-J-7048 was seized during the course of investigation in the present case. Petitioner, who is the owner of the said vehicle, had filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the competent authority to release the aforesaid vehicle to his interim custody and the said application was allowed by the competent authority. Subsequently, the competent authority in exercise of his powers under Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, held enquiry and passed order dated 22.01.2025 confiscating the Eicher Lorry owned by petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.46/2025 which was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 dismissed on 25.10.2025. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. A perusal of the material on record would go to show that the vehicle in question was seized in the present case on 29.07.2021. The application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question before the competent authority immediately thereafter. However, the competent authority appears to have not considered the said application and therefore, petitioner had approached this Court in WP No.2935/2022 which was allowed on 09.02.2022, directing the competent authority to consider the application filed by the petitioner without insisting on furnishing bank guarantee. The competent authority had thereafter, released vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner. Subsequently, the competent authority vide the order dated 22.01.2025 confiscated the vehicle in question and the 23 rosewood logs that were allegedly being transported in the said vehicle. The said order passed by the competent authority has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.46/2025 by the Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikerei vide the judgment and order dated 25.10.2025. 5. The prayer of the petitioner herein is to release the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-58-J-7048 which has been seized in the present case on the allegation that rosewood logs were being transported in the said vehicle. Though FIR in the present case was registered in the month of July, 2021, till date, charge sheet has not been filed against the accused. Learned HCGP on instructions has submitted that investigation of the case is still under progress. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and Another vs. G. V. Sudhakar Rao and Others - (1985) 4 SCC 573, has held that proceedings under Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, is separate and distinct from that of the criminal case registered for the commission of the offence. In paragraph No.12 of the said judgment, it is observed as follows:- "12. A close, careful and combined reading of the various sub-sections of Section 44, Section 45 and Section 58-A of the Act as introduced or amended by Act - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 17 of 1976 leaves no doubt that the intendment of the Legislature was to provide for two separate proceedings before two different forums and there is no conflict of jurisdiction as Section 45, as amended by the Amendment Act, in terms curtails the power conferred on the Magistrate to direct confiscation of timber or forest produce on conviction of the accused. The conferral of power of confiscation of seized timber or forest produce and the implements etc. on the Authorized Officer under sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act on his being satisfied that a forest offence had been committed in respect thereof, is not dependent upon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of a forest offence has been launched against the offender or not. It is a separate and distinct proceeding from that of a trial before the court for commission of an offence. Under sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act, where a Forest Officer makes a report of seizure of any timber or forest produce and produces the seized timber before the authorized officer along with a report under Section 44(2), the authorized officer can direct confiscation to Government of such timber or forest produce and the implements etc. if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, irrespective of the fact whether the accused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for the commission of a forest offence under Section 20 or 29 of the Act." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 7. Therefore, it is very clear that even if investigation is not completed and charge sheet is not filed in the criminal case for the commission of the offence, the competent authority is still empowered to proceed in accordance with law. In the proceedings initiated by him under Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, he is required to satisfy himself based on the material produced before him about the involvement of the vehicle in question in committing the offence. The question that investigation is not completed and charge sheet is not filed in the criminal cases registered would be one of the factor that needs to be kept in mind by the competent authority while passing the order under Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act. 8. In the present case, the material on record would go to show that immediately after the driver and the cleaner of the vehicle, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the criminal case were apprehended, they had informed the Investigation Officer that petitioner has asked them to contact accused No.1 - Abdul Kalam Azad from Hunsur, who had taken the vehicle on lease for the purpose of transporting vegetables from Hunsur to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 Kerala. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the driver and cleaner of the vehicle had contacted Abdul Kalam Azad, who is arraigned as accused No.1 in the criminal case and on his instructions, they had taken the lorry loaded with vegetables from Hunsur to Kerala. It was found that rosewood logs were loaded under the vegetables, which were being transported in the said vehicle. 9. PW1 and PW2 have only stated that rosewood logs were found under the vegetable bags which were being transported in the lorry. Except stating that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle which is seized in the present case, PW1 and PW2 have not stated anything about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime committed. It is not in dispute that petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the criminal case registered for forest offences. According to petitioner, he had no knowledge about the vehicle being used to commit the alleged offence punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act. There is no material collected by the prosecution which would prima facie show that the petitioner had connived with accused Nos.1 to 4 in the present case. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 10. The vehicle in the present case was taken on lease by accused No.1 for transporting vegetables from Hunsur to Kerala. It appears that accused No.1 had misused the vehicle and had loaded rosewood logs beneath the vegetables and had attempted to transport rosewood logs to Kerala. The said vehicle was intercepted at Sampaje check-post and a case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4. In addition to the aforesaid, the prosecution has not filed charge sheet in the criminal case registered till date though more than four years have lapsed after registration of FIR. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the competent authority was not justified in passing the order impugned confiscating the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-58-J-7048, which belongs to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned judgment and orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.46/2025 by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri and the order dated - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8640 CRL.RP No. 48 of 2026 22.01.2025 passed by the Authorized Officer/Deputy Conservator of Forest, Madikeri Division, Madikeri, in proceedings bearing No.A4/FOC/Vahana/CR-07/2021-22, are set-aside and the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-58-J-7048 is directed to be released to the custody of the petitioner. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41