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 ecological protection.

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 13^th 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 27^th 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 Shreya Trading Private Ltd, Phoolpada Road, Virar, Thane, Maharashtra, in a vehicle being Registration No. MH-46-AF-6741. The Deputy Range Forest Officer, Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, had issued exchange permit for transportation of the said forest-produce.

3.2 The said vehicle carrying the forest-produce was checked at Inter- State Check Post (Forest Department), Kagal, Kolhapur. Thereupon, the Maharashtra State Forest Department officials issued an exchange pass bearing No. 014586 for transportation of the forest-produce in the said vehicle to Virar. The transport pass was valid till 1^st July 2016.

3.3 It is the claim of the Petitioners that when the vehicle reached Kalamboli, it developed mechanical issues. While the vehicle was stationed roadside for the purpose of repairs, the local police intercepted the vehicle.

3.4 After the preliminary enquiry, the vehicle along with the forest- produce was handed over to Forest Department on 3^rd July 2016 as the pass had by then expired.

3.5 During the enquiry by the Forest Department officials, it transpired that the mark “JAI” affixed on the logs by the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, was missing and instead some other property marks such as FD CE-48, CE-41, CE-49 and CE-3 were found on the logs. Nine logs were found without any property mark. Noting that the property mark mentioned on the pass and the property mark visible on the logs did not match, and, resultantly, there was violation of the provisions contained in Section 41 of the Forest Act, 1927, CR No. 1 of 2016 was lodged by the Forest Department, Panvel, for the offences punishable under Section 41, 52(1), 52(2) of the Forest Act, 1927. Thereafter, by an order dated 28^th April 2021, the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Panvel, confiscated the said vehicle under Section 61-A of the Forest Act, 1927 (Maharashtra Amendment).

3.6 Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred a Revision Application under Section 61-C of the Forest Act, 1927, before the Chief Conservator of Forest. By an order dated 27^th December 2022, the Chief Conservator of F