SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and R.M. Sahai, JJ.
Forest Range Officer and Ors. - Appellants
versus
P. Mohammed Ali & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Appeal Nos. 420-22 of 1993
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos.
2827-29 of 1992)
Decided on 4.5.1993
Held: The word include in the definition under section 2(f) would show that it did not intend to exclude what was ordinarily and in common parlance be spoken of wood oil. The expression being technical and being part of an inclusive definition has to be construed in its technical sense but in an exhaustive manner, it cannot be restricted in such a manner so as to defeat the principle object and purpose of the Act. The process by which the oil is extracted is not decisive as oil may be extracted by natural process of exudation or it may be extracted by subjecting to chemical or mechanical process and Sandalwood (Santalum Album) are cut into pieces. Its heart wood and roots of Sandalwood trees removed from the forest are used as a raw material at a factory level that too by mechanised process to extract sandalwood oil. The purpose for which the oil is used is not decisive. Therefore, the word wood oil used in the Act will require purposive interpretation drawing the context in which the words are used and its meaning will have to be discovered having regard to the intention and object which legislature seeks to subserve. The restricted meaning sought to put up by the accused would frustrate the object and the literal interpretation would defeat the meaning. The legislature does not intend to restrict the word wood oil nor we find any compelling circumstances in the Act to give restricted meaning that only oil derived from Dipterocarpus trees to be wood oil as contended for the accused and found acceptance to the learned Single Judge. The purposive interpretation would aid conservation of sandal wood, a valuable forest wealth, prevent illicit falling and transportation of them and makes the manufacturers of sandalwood oil accountable to the possession of sandalwood trees or chips or roots etc. Incorporation of sandalwood oil abundentecatela in Karnataka Act and absence thereof in sister Acts operating in South India does not detract from giving its due meaning. The expert opinion is only an opinion evidence on either side and does not aid us in interpretation. (Para7)
JUDGMENT
K. Ramaswamy, J. - Special Leave granted.
2. Untramelled by questions of fact the learned Senior counsel on both sides neatly presented question of law whether "sandlewood oil" is forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(f)(I) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 for short the Act. When proceedings were laid under section 51 (1) of the Act against the respondents in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 27-29 of 1992, they questioned the jurisdiction of the Court in C.C. Nos. 145 and 148 of 1988. Eschewing delineation of intermediary proceedings went on from the start of prosecution, the High Court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code by order dated August 31, 1992, reported in Mohammed Ali v. Forest Range Officer1, quashed the complaint holding that Sandal Wood Oil is not wood oil as defined in Section 2(f)(i) of the Act. So it is not a forest produce. Thus these appeals by special leave. When same question subsequently arose, other learned Single Judge doubting the correctness of aforesaid judgment referred the matter to the division bench which by order dated December 15, 1992, reported in Khushboo Enterprises v. Forest Range Officer2, held that Sandalwood Oil is a forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(f)(1) of the Act. Thus the appeal in the other case
3. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 aims to prevent depleting forests, conservation thereof and protection of wild life in the country to maintain ecological balance. The State Acts regulate preservation of forest and forest produce to supplement the Central Act. The Act prescribes procedure for preservation of the forest and regulates possession of the forest produce, falling of trees in the forest area and removal from the forest or reserved forest area by transit permits etc. When Sandalwood Oil either was found in transit or in possession of the manufacturers, it was seized in the respective cases and laid the complaints under section 51(1) for contravention thereof. As said earlier the jurisdictional question was raised on the premise that Sandal Wood Oil is not a wood oil as defined under section 2(f)(1) of the Act.
4. The question, therefore, emerges whether Sandalwood Oil is a wood oil. Section 2(f) defined forest produce thus:
"Section 2(1) forest produce includes:
(i) the following whether found in or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say -
timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, fibres and roots of sandalwood and rosewood; and
(ii) the following when found in or brought from a forest, that is to say
a) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other, parts or produce not here-in-before mentioned, of trees;
b) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss and all parts or produce of such plants;
c) silk cocoons, honey and wax; and
d) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including limestone, laterite), mineral oils and all produces of mines or quarries".
A reading thereof do indicate that the forest produce whether found in or brought from a forest or not is a forest produce which include, that is to say, the enumerated items in Clauses I and II "wood oil" is one of the enumerated items as well as roots of sandalwood and rosewood. The contention of Sri G. Ramaswami, the learned Senior counsel for the accused is that technical Dictionaries, Botonical Text Books and expert opinion would bring out a demonstrable distinction between wood oil and sandalwood oil. The wood oil is a natural produce of the forest directly derived as an exudation from living trees in the forest belonging to the family of the Dipterocarpucoae trees while sandal wood oil is a bye product from sandalwood (Santalum Album) by industrial process. Wood oil is produced by making a hole on the trunk of the living tree commonly known as "oil trees" or "wood oil trees". This family of trees are variously known in d
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Indian Oil Corporation; AIR 1991 SC 686
Aditya Mills v. Union of India; (1988) 4 SCC 315
Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan; AIR 1990 SC 2269
Rathi Khandsari Udyog & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.; (1985) 2 SCC 485
Fatesang Gimba Vasava & Ors. v. State of Guj. & Ors.; AIR 1987 Guj 9
State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan; (1975) 2 SCC 377
Khushboo Enterprises v. Forest Range Officer; 1993(1) KLT 91.
Babu Manmohan Das Shah & Ors. v. Bishun Das; (1967)1 SCR 836
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.