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
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 by the Petitioners against an order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, dated 27th December 2022, under Section 61-C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (“Forest Act, 1927”), came to be dismissed by affirming the said order which, in turn, has affirmed an order of confiscation of the forest-produce and vehicle, passed by the Competent Authority and Assistant Conservator of Forest, Panvel, under Section 61-A of the Forest Act, 1927.
3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts leading to this Petition can be stated as under:
3.1 The Petitioners were transporting 14204 Kgs of red sanders logs, which were stored at M/s Jai Hanuman Wood Works, No. 50/2, Vijinapura, Doorvaninagar, Bangalore to M/s Shr
State of West Bengal and Ors Vs Sujit Kumar Rana
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Uday Singh
Shyamrao S/o Kewalram Kapgate and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.