IMPORTANT POINT
Bamboo mat is not a forest produce in the eye of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

JUDGMENT

Hansaria, J.-Whether bamboo mat is a forest-produce as is this expression known to the Indian Forest Act? requires our determination in this appeal. This question would decide whether the order of confiscation of bamboo mat belonging to the appellant was in accordance with law. The Bombay High Court, having been approached in revision by the State against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing release of the bamboo mat, has reversed the order being of the view that the product confiscated was "forest-produce". The owner of the bamboo mat has approached this Court by filing this appeal.

2. "Forest-produce" has been defined in The Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as below:

"2(4) "forest-produce" includes-

(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say - timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth and myrabolams, and

(b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say-

(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees.

(ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants,

(iii) wild animals an skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals, and

(iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including line-stone, laterite, mineral oils, and all products of mines or quarries)."

We must also note the definition of "timber" as given in sub-clause (6) and of "tree" in sub-clause (7) - the same being as below :

"(6) "timber" includes trees when they have fallen or have been felled, and all wood whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not; and

(7) "tree" includes palms, bamboos, stumps, brush-wood and canes."

3. The High Court s decision is principally based on a conjoint reading of definition of "timber" and "tree". It has stated that as definition of "tree" includes bamboo, and as definition of "timber" includes tree, even a fashioned bamboo would be a tree. It was then stated that "forest-produce" having been defined as any produce of tree in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (4), bamboo mat is forest-produce. In taking this view the High Court differed from what had been held by Gujarat High Court in Fatesang Gimba Vasava v. State of Gujarat1.

4. Shri Bhatia, appearing for the appellant, who was duly assisted by Ms. Verma, submitted that the High Court erred in holding that a product like bamboo mat would be forest-produce by relying on the definition of "timber" because that definition is in two parts and the second part which speaks of "all wood ........ fashioned ......... or not" has no application so far trees are concerned, which have been dealt in the first part of the definition. It has also been urged that bamboo mat being a separate commercial product what was stated by the Gujarat High Court in Fatesang s case merits our acceptance.

5. Shri Dholakia, who was duly assisted by Shri Jadhav, however, contends that if bamboo mat is held to be not a forest-produce, the object of the Act would be frustrated inasmuch as it would debar the forest authorities to inquire about the removal of such goods from the forests, which would be used as a handle by unscrupulous dealers to denude the country of his forest wealth. To buttress his submission, reference has been made to the definition of "produce" in Stroud s Judicial Dictionary which reads : The expression produce of mines or minerals does not necessarily mean produce in its native state; coke may be such produce, although by combustion its chemical nature is changed."

6. We have given our considered thought to the rival contentions. It appears to us that the High Court erred in taking the abovesaid view by ref