1. Seizure of sandalwood and confiscation of transport vehicle under Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 — Challenge to confiscation order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1052
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
State of Kerala – Appellants
Versus
Jossy Sequeria – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 269 of 2008
Decided On : 05-9-2017
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv.
For the Respondents: Sajith. P, Adv.
For the Appellants : Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv.
For the Respondents: Sajith. P, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
A State cannot confiscate produce unless it is proved to belong to it.
Headnote:Kerala Forest Act, 1961 – Section 61-A – Confiscation of forest produce by Kerala authorities – Jeep coming from Karnataka – Forest produce not proved to be belonging to Kerala – High court quashing confiscation. (Para 12)
1994(1) KLT 29 – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
The jeep of the respondent and the forest produced being carried in it were confiscated.
The High Court quashed the confiscation order.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State challenges the quashing of a confiscation order; Respondent disputes the legality of the confiscation based on the ownership and origin of the seized produce. (Para 1 , 7 )
3. The court observed that the goods were brought from another state and the State failed to prove ownership of the seized forest produce. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Confiscation under Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 requires proof that the seized forest produce is Government property. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed and the High Court order quashing the confiscation order upheld. (Para 13 )
6. When can a confiscation order under Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 be quashed?
A confiscation order can be quashed if it is not proven that the seized forest produce belongs to the State, particularly when the goods were brought from another state. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What is the impact of the origin of seized forest produce on confiscation proceedings under the Kerala Forest Act?
If the seized goods are found to have been brought from another state and ownership by the local State government is not established, the confiscation of the transport vehicle may be unjustified. (Para 11 , 12 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
This appeal is filed by the State of Kerala against the final judgment dated 23.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 1924 of 2003 wherein the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent herein and quashed the confiscation order.
2. The controversy involved in the appeal is short. However, few facts need mention to appreciate the issue involved.
3. The appellant is State of Kerala. On 29.11.1998, the police sleuths seized 3 bags of sandalwood weighing 20 Kg. from one Jeep bearing Registration No. KA-12-2932. Basheer-the driver of the Jeep was arrested and handed over to the custody of Assistant Wild Life Warden, Tholpetty. The Jeep was also handed over to the said authority for further action in the case.
4. On investigation, it was revealed that the respondent is the owner of the Jeep. His statement was accordingly recorded. The authority concerned, on investigation, prima facie found that the forest produce seized was a Government property and the same was being illegally transported in the Jeep.
5. A show cause notice was accordingly issued to the respondent on 06.03.1999 to appear before the authorized officer. The respondent was heard. Finding no satisfactory reply, the authorized officer confiscated the forest produce and the Jeep under Section 61-A of the KERALA FOREST ACT , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by order dated 30.04.1999.
6. The respondent, felt aggrieved of the order dated 30.04.1999, filed appeal before the Additional District Judge Wayanad. By order dated 07.04.2003, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The respondent, felt aggrieved of the order of the Appellate Court, filed revision petition before the High Court.
7. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the revision and quashed the confiscation order. It is against this order of the High Court, the State of Kerala has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.
9. We find that the High Court while allowing the respondent's revision petition for quashing confiscation order had placed reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Bhargavan v. Divisional Forest Officer , 1994(1) KLT 29. We have perused the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Bhargavan (supra) wherein the High Court (Single Judge) on somewhat similar facts alike herein interpreted Section 61-A of the Act read with the Rules and had quashed the confiscation order impugned therein.
10. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court recorded in the case of Bhargavan (supra). In this view of the matter, the High Court in this case was justified in deciding the issue in the light of law laid down by the Kerala High Court in Bhargavan's case (supra).
11. We also find in this case that the Courts below held on facts that firstly, the seized goods in question were being brought from Karnataka by the owner of the Jeep; and secondly, it could not be proved that the goods belonged to the State of Kerala.
12. With these two findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the High Court was justified in quashing confiscation order made under Section 61-A of the Act. We find no good ground to set aside these findings of fact.
13. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit. It thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
