SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 272

2012 (2) Supreme 644
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam & J. Chelameswar, JJ.
State of Kerala & Anr. — Appellants
versus
P.V. Mathew (dead) by L.RS. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3337 of 2012
Decided on : 2-4-2012

Headnote:Kerala Forest Act, 1961- Section 61A -Prosecution of respondent along co accused persons for illicit killing of a wild elephant-Confiscation of car of respondent by Divisional Forest Officer –Appeal-Allowed by District Judge-Revision Petition –Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- Instantly neither any property was seized from car nor had any seizure taken effect as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 52- Inasmuch as seizure under Section 52 of the Act had not taken place and no forest offence in respect of a forest produce was shown to have been committed or established in the case, there was absolutely no justification for the seizure - Order of confiscation of said car was beyond the jurisdiction of authorized officer- These aspects had been rightly considered by District Court as well as High Court - In the absence of specific charge under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 , Authorized Officer was not justified in ordering confiscation of the vehicle-Appeal dismissed (Paras 8 to 10)

       Facts of the Case :

        A Respondent along with co accused persons was prosecuted for illicit killing of a wild elephant. After investigation, the Forest Range Officer, Pariyaram submitted a report. The Investigating Officer issued a show cause notice to the original respondent as to why the car should not be confiscated to Government under Section 61A of Kerala Forest Act, 1961 . After hearing him and after perusing the final report of the Investigating Officer, the Divisional Forest Officer, passed an order for confiscation of the car.

        B. Aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, the original respondent preferred an appeal being before the District Judge, Thrissur. By order, the District Judge allowed the appeal.

        C. Against the order passed by the District Judge, the State preferred a revision petition being before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the revision filed by the State.

        D. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        A. In the instant case, neither any property was seized from the car nor had any seizure taken effect as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 52. Inasmuch as seizure under Section 52 of the Act had not taken place and no forest offence in respect of a forest produce was shown to have been committed or established in the case, there was absolutely no justification for the seizure and the order of confiscation of the said car was beyond the jurisdiction of the authorized officer. These aspects had been rightly considered by the District Court as well as the High Court.

        B. Inasmuch as the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 take care of wild animals skins, tusks, horns, bones, honey, wax and other parts or produce of animals, in the absence of specific charge under the said Act, the Authorized Officer was not justified in ordering confiscation of the vehicle.

       

JUDGMENT

P Sathasivam, J.— Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.12.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 1587 of 1999 whereby the High Court while affirming the order dated 04.12.1998 of the District Judge, Thrissur in C.M.A. No. 16 of 1997 dismissed the revision petition filed by the State of Kerala, the appellant herein.

3. Brief facts:

(a) According to the prosecution, a case was registered as C.R. No. 5 of 1990 in Vazhachal Range in Vazhachal Forest Division of Kerala on the allegation of illicit killing of a wild elephant. During the course of investigation, three persons, viz., Nelladan George, Madhura Johny and Chirayath Jose were taken into custody and questioned. On 01.04.1991, Nelladan George and Madhura Johny gave statements before the Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakudy and Chirayath Jose had given statement before the Range Officer, Flying Squad, Thrissur. While questioning, they admitted having gone to Vazhikadavu and shot dead wild tuskers about six months back. In the statement given by Madhura Johny, he admitted that about seven months back he along with four others, namely, Nelladan George, Parambal Chandran, Kaitharam Paulachan, Kottatti Jose had gone to Vazhikadavu area in a car bearing Registration No. KL 8 6755 for shooting elephants with two unlicensed guns. After reaching there, they sent back the car and went to the forest. After two or three days, Madhura Johny shot dead two tuskers, one big elephant and another small one. They collected the tusks and kept it in a cave and returned to Thrissur by bus. Again they went to Vazhikadavu in the same car and collected the tusks hided in the cave. They brought the tusks to Thrissur and sold it to Chirayath Jose for Rs.72,000/-. They paid Rs.3,500/- to the driver of the car for two trips and the balance amount they divided among them.

(b) After recording the statement, on 09.04.1991, Range Officer, Thrissur Flying Squad and his party seized the car. On the same day, the car was produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakudy and thereafter he entrusted the car to the Range Officer, Pariyaram for safe custody and asked him to conduct a detailed enquiry.

(c) The owner of the vehicle the respondent herein filed O.P. No. 4554 of 1991 before the High Court praying for release of the vehicle. The High Court, by order dated 30.04.1991, directed to release the vehicle for interim custody to the respondent herein on furnishing security of immovable property to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, the car was released to the respondent herein on his furnishing the security.

(d) After investigation, the Forest Range Officer, Pariyaram submitted a report on 02.10.1996. On 30.10.1996, the Investigating Officer issued a show cause notice to the original respondent i.e. P.V. Mathew as to why the car should not be confiscated to Government under Section 61A of Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and called upon him to appear in person on 26.11.1996. After hearing him and after perusing the final report of the Investigating Officer, the Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakudy passed an order dated 20.12.1996 for confiscation of the car.

(e) Aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, the original respondent preferred an appeal being C.M.A. No. 16 of 1997 before the District Judge, Thrissur. By order dated 04.12.1998, the District Judge allowed the appeal.

(f) Against the order passed by the District Judge, the State preferred a revision petition being C.R.P. No. 1587 of 1999 before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2005, dismissed the revision filed by the State.

(g) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, sole respondent died and his LRs were brought on record as R(i) to (viii).

4. Heard Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counse



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top