Bharath Booshan Aggarwal vs State of Kerala

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 545

INDIRA BANERJEE, S.RAVINDRA BHAT
Bharath Booshan Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

DICTUM:

Sandalwood oil is forest produce.[1000742990016][1000742990017][1000742990018][1000742990019]
When possession of forest produce is found, Section 69 enacts a rebuttable presumption that it belongs to the government.[1000742990020][1000742990022][1000742990025]
Section 27(1)(d) requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of foundational facts: that forest produce was illicitly removed from a reserved forest (or land proposed as such), that the accused had possession of it, and that such possession was knowing.[1000742990022][1000742990024][1000742990025]
Generally, there is a presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient in every offence. Yet, that presumption can be displaced either by phraseology of law creating offence or by subject matter with which it deals.[1000742990023]
Section 69 presumption applies only to ownership of forest produce (that it belongs to government) and does not extend to culpable mental state or knowledge of illicit origin.[1000742990022][1000742990025][1000742990027][1000742990028]
Possession of labelled forest produce without transit licence, by itself, does not prove knowledge of illicit origin; prosecution must disprove accused's credible explanation of legitimate sourcing.[1000742990021][1000742990026][1000742990027]
Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal by Sessions Court unless compelling reasons based on misappreciation of evidence or law; High Court erred by presuming culpable mental state from Section 69 and reversing acquittal without disproving accused's documents.[1000742990028]

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This appeal by special leave, questions a judgment of the Kerala High Court¹[Dated 19-12-2008, in Crl. A No. 556/2001] reversing the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and consequently, restoring the conviction and sentence (of 3 years’ imprisonment) for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act (hereafter “the Act”).

2. The first appellant is a partner of the appellant’s firm, and claims to be manufacturer and trader of sandalwood oil. On 4 January 1994, upon receipt of information, officials of the Kerala Forest Department seized 37 cartons containing 460 kgs of sandalwood oil at Karipur airport, belonging to the appellants. Later a criminal complaint was filed by the State, wherein it was alleged that the appellants’ premises were searched in the course of investigation, which in turn yielded in seizure of another 73.6 kgs of sandalwood oil. The appellant resisted the charges of illegal possession of forest produce, and its movement, stating that they processed and manufactured sandalwood oil, which was then exported to four different countries. The complaint filed by the Kerala Forest Department, alleged that sandalwood

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 545

INDIRA BANERJEE, S.RAVINDRA BHATBharath Booshan Aggarwal – AppellantVersusState of Kerala – Respondent

Cases Referred (10)

INDIRA BANERJEE, S.RAVINDRA BHAT
Bharath Booshan Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent