M/s. Girdhari Lal vs State of H.P.

V.P. Bhatnagar, J.—The petitioners are the owners of truck No. HPA 6463. This truck was hired for the purpose of carrying potato bags from Pulbahal to Solan but was taken into custody by the Rajgarh Police, since it was found to carry illicit timber. An F.I.R. u/s 379 I.P.C. and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act stands lodged.

The petitioners approached the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan for releasing the truck on �Spurdari�. It was ordered by that Court on February 1, 1986 that the truck be released to the owners on their furnishing bank guarantee of the State Bank of India to the tune of rupees one lac under taking to produce the truck as and when desired by the Court or the police.

The present petition is directed against the aforesaid order. It has been averred that the petitioners are not in a position to furnish the bank guarantee and that the impugned order be modified so as to release the truck on �Spurdari�.

It is not disputed that the truck was found to carry timber with respect to which none has come forward to claim the ownership till now. At the present stage of the investigation, the driver and the conductor of the truck in question are yet to be interrogated and the learned Deputy Advocate General states that it has not been possible to trace them. They were admittedly in the employment of the petitioners at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

The vehicles which are found to be involved in the commission of forest offences are liable to be confiscated to the State. The rationale behind the above statutory provision is to deter the owners thereof, as far as possible, to involve their vehicles so as to facilitate the commission of forest offences. Therefore, such a vehicle ought not to be ordinarily released to the owner on �Spurdari� as a matter of routine. This is speci-ically so because its release on �Spurdari� to the owner would mean that he would be free to ply it and the truck would then be subjected to its normal wear and tear and there may not be much left in the truck by the time the case is finally decided by the Courts. Manifestly, such a course would run counter to the Legislative intendment behind the provision that such a vehicle is liable to be confiscated. Further-more, denuding the forest wealth has to be viewed seriously as it upsets the ecological balance and has far-reaching consequences not only against the State but the entire country. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that the truck cannot be allowed to remain in the custody of the police indefinitely because in that eventuality its condition would gradually deteriorate. This, also, is not in public interest. Therefore, one course open may be to order sale of such vehicle, depending on the merits of each case, and to keep the proceeds with the Court till the decision of the case.

In the totality of the above circumstances, it would not be proper to release the truck to the owners at the present stage of the investigation. This application can be better considered and disposed of after more facts come to light during the investigation and are placed before the Court. As it is, this case is adjourned to March 4, 1986 when the latest position emerging out of the investigation be intimated to the Court by way of fifing the affidavit of the Investigating Officer on the points adverted to above.

The operation of the order dated February 1, 1986, of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, is stayed.