By the aforesaid order, the High Court had allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent and directed to release rosewood logs and the lorry to the respondents, leaving it open to the appellants to take any other appropriate action in respect of the property seized, as permissible in law.
Even the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of detention by the officer was found to be different than the Civil Appeal
No 4367 of 2012 one who was driving the vehicle when it crossed the check-post on Kutta side.
The lorry in which the logs were being transported was also loaded with bananas and rice husk bags.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/retirement-age-of-pti-sports-officer-in-university/
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a case where the appellants have not been able to establish that the rosewood logs belonged to the ‘state’.
From the facts as have been noticed in brief above, the matter does not require examination in detail by this Court at this stage, for the reason that, neither the lorry nor the rosewood logs are available as both have been sold by the state and the amount is lying with the exchequer, hence cannot be returned back, if order passed by the High Court is upheld.
The High Court would also examine the desirability of awarding interest thereon from the date the amount, on account of sale of lorry and rosewood logs, was credited in the state exchequer.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Case Title: ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN Vs. K.K.MOIDEEN (2023 INSC 696)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004367-004367 / 2012
