1. Trespass into government reserve forest — Cutting sheesham wood logs — Seizure of vehicle under Forest Act — Criminal acquittal. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1533
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.V.Reddi : R.C.Lahoti
State Of Goa
Versus
Devanand Shrikant Naik
Case No. : 729 of 1996
Date of Decision : 10/31/01
Confiscation of a vehicle under the Forest Act requires a reasoned belief that it was used for transporting illicit forest produce; mere possibility of use is insufficient. Patently illegal confiscation orders cannot be upheld, notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction provided under Section 61G.
Headnote:(A) Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended in Goa) - Sections 52, 61A and 61G - Indian Penal Code - Sections 379, 447 read with 34 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Section 3 - Forest Act as a self-contained legislation - Section 61G stipulates that only authorized officers, specially empowered officers, or the sessions judge have jurisdiction over custody, possession, delivery, or distribution of seized property, notwithstanding any other law including the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Para 7).
(B) Legality of confiscation - Confiscation of a vehicle requires a belief, founded on reasons, that the vehicle was used or being used for transporting forest produce in respect of which an offence was committed - Mere possibility or likelihood of use does not empower the authorized officer to seize or confiscate the vehicle (Para 7).
(C) Judicial directions - A direction to issue show cause notices to public officials without specifying the nature of the proposed action or the law under which such action is proposed to be taken is too vague and serves no purpose (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
Accused persons were alleged to have trespassed into a reserve forest and cut logs of wood. A vehicle parked nearby was seized by forest officers. The accused were charged under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, directed the release of the seized vehicle to its owner, and directed that show cause notices be issued to the forest officers who conducted the seizure. The state government challenged these directions before the High Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the acquittal of the accused was justified. Regarding the vehicle, while the trial court technically lacked jurisdiction under Section 61G of the Forest Act to order its release, the original confiscation order was patently illegal as there was no evidence that the vehicle was actually used for the commission of the forest offence. Consequently, the order directing the release of the vehicle was maintained. However, the direction to issue show cause notices to the forest officers was found to be too vague and was set aside.
Issues: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order the release of a vehicle seized under the Forest Act; whether the seizure and confiscation of the vehicle were legally justified; and whether the direction to issue show cause notices to the officers was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: For a vehicle to be legally confiscated under the Forest Act, there must be a recorded belief based on evidence that it was used in the commission of a forest offence; mere proximity or possibility of use is insufficient. Furthermore, while specific officers have exclusive jurisdiction over seized property, a patently illegal confiscation order cannot be upheld to retain property. Judicial directions for disciplinary action must be specific and not vague.
Result: Judgment of trial court maintained regarding acquittal and release of vehicle; direction to issue show cause notices set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- property law
- environment and natural resources law
Table of Contents
2. State challenged acquittal, release of seized vehicle, and direction to issue show-cause notice to forest officers. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Forest Act is self-contained for confiscation. Order lacked jurisdictional facts. Vehicle not used for offence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Under Section 61G, only authorised officer or Sessions Judge has jurisdiction over confiscation, excluding criminal courts. (Para 7 )
5. Acquittal and release of vehicle maintained; direction to issue show-cause notice to forest officers set aside. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. Can a criminal court direct release of property seized under the Forest Act?
No. Under Section 61G, only the authorised officer under Section 61A or the Sessions Judge on appeal has such jurisdiction. (Para 7 )
7. What jurisdictional facts are required for seizure and confiscation of a vehicle under the Forest Act?
The vehicle must be used or being used for transport of forest produce in respect of which an offence was committed. (Para 5 , 7 )
8. Can a court issue a vague direction to show cause why action should not be taken?
No. The direction must specify the nature of proposed action and the law under which it is taken. (Para 9 )
9. Is the owner of seized property a necessary party in an appeal against its release?
Yes. The High Court cannot set aside a release order in the owner's absence without putting them on notice. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT
R.C.LAHOTI, J.
(1) ON 3/07/1991, it is alleged that three accused persons trespassed into government reserve forest at Durgini, Dharbandors within the limits of Ponda police station and cut 12 logs of sheesham wood worth Rs. 5,000.00. The range forest officers detected 12 logs of sheesham wood lying in the reserve forest and a Maruti van bearing registration no. GA-01-P-7676 parked at a distance of few meters therefrom. Two of the accused persons were seated in the Maruti van. The range forest officers tried to apprehend the accused persons who tried to flee away in the Maruti van. However, the Maruti van was intercepted and seized by the forest officers. A report of theft was lodged with the police. Offences under sections 447, 379 read with 34 IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 were registered. The accused persons having been found on investigation by the police, to have committed the alleged offences, they were chargesheeted and produced before the court of judicial magistrate, first class at Sanguem, Goa. The chargesheet filed by the police - reported the seizure of 12 logs of sheesham wood and Maruti van as also one axe and one quita - the tools used for cutting the trees. While the axe and quita were physically produced in the court, the seizure of 12 logs of wood and Maruti van was only reported to the learned magistrate as these two articles were in the custody of forest conservator at Collem. On trial, the learned magistrate found the offences under sections 379, 447 read with 34 IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 having been not made out and therefore acquitted the accused persons of the offences charged. The learned magistrate also directed the Maruti van to be released to accused no. 1 or to its owner within a period of 60 days from the date of the judgment. During the course of his judgment, the learned magistrate held that the two range forest officers examined as Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 6 before him, had acted in high-handed manner and their act in seizing the Maruti van and prosecuting the accused persons could not be said to be bona fide. The learned magistrate, in the operative part of judgment, also directed - "Issue show cause notice to Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 6 as to why action should not be taken against them".
(2) AGGRIEVED by the acquittal of the accused respondents, the direction of the trial court releasing the Maruti van and the direction to issue show cause notice to Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 6, the state government preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji, Goa. By the impugned order dated 3/04/1998, the High Court has refused to interfere with the order of the acquittal made by the trial court. The state government of Goa has filed this appeal by special leave.
(3) SO far as the acquittal of the accused - respondents for the offences charged is concerned, having gone through the judgment of the trial court as also the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are satisfied that no result can be found with the acquittal of the accused respondents. However, the more serious challenge made by the learned counsel for the state, during the course of submissions, is to the two directions made by the trial court, specially that part of the judgment, which directs the release of the seized vehicle to accused no. 1 or the owner thereof.
(4) IT appears that according to the documents relating to the seized vehicle, the owner thereof is one Smt. Mastani Begum, Panigatti. The vehicle was seized under section 52 of the Indian Forest (Goa Amendment) Act, 1927. In this case we are dealing with the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended in its application to Goa, by legislative assembly of Goa, which shall, hereinafter, be referred to as the Act for short. Notice was issued to the said owner to show cause why the vehicle be not c
