JUDGMENT - B.G. KOLSE PATIL, J.:---The petitioner has been running a Saw Mill under the name and style of "Sharda Timber Mart" at Yawat, Tal., Daund, Dist. Pune. On 19th March, 1984 the Mobile Squad, Forest Department visited the Saw Mill. The petitioner was then present in the Mill. The squad found in the said Saw Mill 16 logs of teak wood without any marking of forest authority. They also found that they were recently cut. They noticed that truck bearing No. MTS 6429 was being unloaded in the closed compound of the Saw Mill. As the logs appeared to have been recently cut, they suspected some foul play. The panchas were summoned by the Range Forest Officer, who was in charge of the mobile squad. A panchanama was drawn up. A statement of the petitioner was then recorded. The petitioner stated that the Saw Mill was being run by him along with other partners since two years prior to that date, without any licence. The Range Forest Officer seized the truck and also seized the said wood. He also sealed the machinery of the Saw Mill as he had reason to believe that an offence in respect of the forest produce was being committed. The said saw Mill was also being run without a licence.

2. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Pune, with an application requesting the removal of the said seal. The learned Magistrate by his order dated July 3, 1984 allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the forest authority to remove the seal.

3. The aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate was challenged in the revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pune. An interim relief against the order of the learned Magistrate was granted and the order was stayed. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision application and set aside the order of unsealing passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. The petitioner has questioned the order of the learned Sessions Judge in this Criminal Writ Petition. Criminal Application No. 520 of 1985 in this Writ Petition was filled by the petitioner, An interim relief was granted to the petitioner and the order of the learned Magistrate and restored. The final hearing of this matter however, was expedited and the petition was listed for final disposal in June, 1985.

5. Shri Kankaria, the learned Council, appearing for the petitioner supported the order of the learned Magistrate and the interim order of this Court and submitted the prima facie there is no provision for sealing the machinery of a Saw Mill either in the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or in the Bombay Forest Rules, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He further submitted that provisions of Section 52 of the Act do not specifically mention the Saw Mill. The sealing of the Saw Mill, therefore, is not contemplated under the Act or the Rules. The sealing of the Saw Mill is not even intended by the legislature. He further submitted that the penal statutes are always to be construed strictly. According to him, the word 'tools' in the section includes tools used for cutting the wood in the forest and putting it in the vehicles for transit. The word 'tools' means and necessarily implies instruments or tools used by manual workers. He contended that provisions of section 52 of the Act do not contemplate sealing as the word sealing is different than the word 'seizing'. What can be seized under this section is only moveable property. He, therefore, submitted that even if a prima facie case is disclosed against the petitioner, the Forest Authorities are not empowered to seal the machinery of the Saw Mill either under the Act or under the Rules. He lastly submitted that the work 'tools' is to be read in the context and the statute is to be construed as a whole.

6. On the other hand, Shri Agarwal, submitted that the forest offences can be divided into three parts. viz. (a) cutting and falling of the trees in the forest without permission. (b) transporting the illicit wood, and (c) storing and cutti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document