Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR
Ravi K.S. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra At the instance of Chief Conservator of Forest – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of seizure for expired transit pass. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue valid permits despite mark discrepancies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. state emphasizes expired pass as forest offence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. statutory regime mandates valid passes for transit. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. purposive interpretation protects forest conservation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. expired pass constitutes prima facie forest offence. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. confiscation justified despite minor mark issues. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. petition dismissed; confiscation orders upheld. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
N. J. Jamadar, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Petitioners assail the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 13th March 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Panvel in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2023, whereby the Appeal preferred b
Transit of forest-produce beyond pass validity constitutes forest-offence mandating confiscation of produce/vehicle; strict compliance essential as deterrent to deforestation, liberally construed for....
Confiscation of forest produce is discretionary and must consider circumstances affecting its necessity.
Confiscation under the Orissa Forest Act requires proof of a forest offence and adherence to procedural safeguards, failure of which invalidates the confiscation order.
Confiscation under the Indian Forest Act requires proven knowledge or connivance of the owner in the illegal transport of forest produce, which was not established here.
The petitioner failed to establish that his vehicle was used without his knowledge, as required by Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, demonstrating insufficient proof of diligence agains....
Point of Law : 19. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
Point of Law : 18. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
Point of Law : 14. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
When there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing any such off....
Transporting timber without a valid permit violates the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and Timber Transit Rules.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
