Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.
Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. Formerly Known As Dabur Pharma Ltd. , A Company Duly Registered Under The Companies Act , 1956 , Having Its Registered Office At B-310 , Som Datt Chabers-i Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through The Public Prosecutor High Court (A. S.) , Bombay - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 667, 668 and 3285 of 2010 with Criminal Writ Petition No. 3425, 3426, 3427 and 3428 of 2011
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Mr. Subhash Jha, a/w. Venkita Subramaniam, Meena Mishra, M. Sheth, Krunal Jadhav, Ritesh Kesarwani, Shraddha Kataria and Praveena Venkatraman, i/b. Law Global, Advocates, for the Petitioners; Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganpathy, APP for the Respondent-State.
IMPORTANT POINT
Camptothecin, as a chemically transformed product, does not constitute 'Forest Produce' under the Indian Forest Act, and bona fide purchasers without knowledge of illegal origins cannot be prosecuted under related forest laws.
Headnote:
WILDLIFE PROTECTION - CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING FOREST PRODUCE - Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Secs. 27, 29, 30, 31, 35, 39, 50, 51, 52; Indian Forest Act 1927: Secs. 26(1)(a, c, d, f, 41, 42); Indian Penal Code: Secs. 107, 117, 120-A; Bombay Forest Rules 1942: Rules 66, 129 - The court analyzed the definitions and interpretations of 'Forest Produce' under the Indian Forest Act and the Wildlife Protection Act, concluding that Camptothecin, derived from Narkya trees, does not retain the character of the original forest produce after undergoing chemical transformation. The court emphasized the distinction between physical and chemical changes, ultimately ruling that the prosecution of the petitioners was unwarranted as they were bona fide purchasers without knowledge of the illegal origin of the Camptothecin.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of offenses related to the illegal felling of Narkya trees and the subsequent extraction of Camptothecin, a pharmaceutical product. They contended that Camptothecin, being a processed product, does not qualify as 'Forest Produce' under the relevant laws, and argued that they were innocent purchasers of the product without knowledge of its illegal origins.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seized Camptothecin did not qualify as 'Forest Produce' due to the significant chemical transformation it underwent, which altered its original character. The court upheld previous judgments that supported this interpretation, concluding that the petitioners were not liable for prosecution as they acted in good faith.
Issues: Whether Camptothecin can be classified as 'Forest Produce' under the Indian Forest Act and whether the petitioners can be held liable for its possession given their status as bona fide purchasers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that products derived from forest produce that undergo significant chemical changes do not retain the classification of 'Forest Produce'. The distinction between physical and chemical changes is crucial in determining the applicability of forest laws.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal cases against the petitioners, ruling that their prosecution was an abuse of the legal process.
JUDGMENT
Shyam C. Chandak, J. - Present Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (Cr.PC.), seeking to quash and set aside the criminal cases mentioned in the chart hereinbelow, wherein the Petitioners have been made accused. The offences alleged against the Petitioners are same and/or similar. Only distinction is that the theft of the subject matter 'Forest Produce' has been committed at different locations of the forest/non-forest land of the Respondents. For the sake of brevity, a chart showing C.R. No.; Case No.; Accused Nos. and Sections of the Acts applied is given hereunder.
1) CWP 667/2010
J.M.F.C. Court, at Shirala. RCC No. 39/2008
Accused Nos. 108 & 109
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Secs. 27, 29,30,31,35,39,50,51 & 52. Indian Forest Act 1927: Secs. 26 (1) a, c, d, f, 41 and 42(e)(h) The Indian Penal Code: Secs. 107, 117 and 120-A The Bombay Forest Rules, 1942: Rules 66 & 129.
2) CWP 668/2010
J.M.F.C. Court, at Shirala. SCC No. 183/2006
Accused Nos. 42 & 43
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Secs. 27, 29,30,31,35,39,50,51 & 52. Indian Forest Act 1927: Secs. 26 (1) a, c, d, f, 41 and 42. The Indian Penal Code: Secs. 107, 117 and 120-A. The Bombay Forest Rules, 1942: Rules 66 & 129.
3) CWP 3285/2010
J.M.F.C. Court, at Malkapur, Shahuwadi SCC No. 79/2006
Accused Nos. 49 & 50
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Secs .27, 29,30,31,35,39,50,51 & 52. Indian Forest Act 1927: Secs. 26(1)a, c, f, 41 and 42. The Indian Penal Code: Secs. 107, 117 and 120-A. The Bombay Forest Rules, 1942: Rules 66 & 129.
4) CWP 3425/2011
J.M.F.C. Court, at Malkapur, Shahuwadi RCC No. 79/2006
Accused Nos. 43 & 44
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Secs. 27, 29,30,31,35,39,50,51 & 52. Indian Forest Act 1927: Secs. 26 (1) a, c, f, 41 and 42. The Indian Penal Code: Secs. 107, 117 and 120-A. The Bombay Forest Rules, 1942: Rules 66 & 129.
5) CWP 3426/2011
J.M.F.C. Court, at Malkapur, Shahuwadi RCC No. 46/2007
Accused Nos. 21 & 22
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Secs. 27, 29,30,31,35,39,50,51 & 52. Indian Forest Act 1927: Secs. 26(1) a, c, d, f, 41 and 42. The Indian Penal Code: Secs. 107, 117 and 120-A. The Bombay Forest Rules, 1942: Rules 66 & 129.
6) CWP 3427/2011
J.M.F.C. Court, at Shirala RCC No. 33/2008
Accused Nos. 62 & 63
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Secs.27, 29,30,31,35,39,50,51 & 52. Indian Forest Act 1927: Secs. 26 (1) a, b, c, d, f, 41 and 42. The Indian Penal Code: Secs. 107, 117 and 120-A, 120-B. The Bombay Forest Rules, 1942: Rule 129.
7) CWP 3428/2011
J.M.F.C. Court, at Malkapur, Shahuwadi RCC No. 45/07
Accused Nos. 21 & 22
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Secs.27, 29,30,31,35,39,50,51 & 52. Indian Forest Act 1927: Secs. 26 (1)a, c, d, f, 41 and 42. The Indian Penal Code: Secs. 107, 117 and 120-A. The Bombay Forest Rules, 1942: Rules. 66 & 129.
2. Heard Shri Subhash Jha, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganpathy, learned APP for the Respondents-State. Perused the Petitions, the documents annexed thereto and the affidavit-in-reply by Respondent No.2. All the Petitions have been opposed by Respondent No.2 by its common affidavit-in-reply, filed in W.P No.668 of 2010.
2.1 In the first six Petitions, Rule was issued on 22nd February, 2013 and in the last petition on 9th July, 2013.
3. The prosecution case giving rise to filing of these Petitions, as can be discerned and briefly stated as under:-
3.1 Narkya is a small tree, found in the western Ghats of Maharashtra. It is called Nothapodyts nimmoniana (formerly known as Mapia foetida). On detection of illicit felling of Narkya trees in Chandoli National Park in April 2005, preliminary, 27 offences were registered, enquired and total 12 complaints have been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Shahuwadi and Shirala of Kolhapur and Sangli Districts respectively against total 490 offenders (since many of the accused are repeated in various cases, the net numbers of accuse
