Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a vehicle seized for alleged use in a forest offence should ordinarily be released during pendency of confiscation proceedings, and whether the High Court was justified in modifying the condition of release imposed by the Authorised Officer.
Analysis: The Act was enacted to preserve and protect forests and forest produce, and the statutory scheme relating to seizure, confiscation, and release of property used in a forest offence must be strictly implemented. Property alleged to have been used in committing a forest offence should not normally be returned pending completion of confiscatory proceedings. If release is ordered in exceptional circumstances, a bank guarantee is the minimum safeguard. A liberal approach in such matters is inconsistent with the object of the Act and may frustrate enforcement of forest protection measures.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in replacing the bank guarantee condition with two solvent sureties, and the order granting such modification was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order of the High Court was reversed, leaving the stricter approach to interim release of vehicles seized in forest-offence cases intact.
Ratio Decidendi: A vehicle seized for alleged involvement in a forest offence should not ordinarily be released pending confiscation proceedings, and if release is exceptionally granted, furnishing a bank guarantee is the minimum protective condition.