Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 591 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Authorised Officer & Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr
RESPONDENT:
Asgarli Khan
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/2007
BENCH:
TARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.591 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4460 of 2004)
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.
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.
Leave granted.
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 \026 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.