A finished product derived from a forest produce may not be considered a forest produce under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, if it has undergone a substantial chemical change, resulting in a loss of the original character and properties of the forest produce.

1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2006, by which the challenge of the writ petitioner/respondent against notice issued by the appellant dated 16th July, 2005 and the order dated 19th July, 2005, was upheld.

2. The short fact leading to filing of the writ petition and preferring the instant appeal is as follows :

On 16th July, 2005, the appellant issued a notice to the respondent/writ petitioner proposing to take action on the ground of theft and use of stolen medicinal plant material Mappia Foetida in connection with manufacturing of finished product Camptothecin. The said notice was issued, apparently under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Indisputably, the appellant has the authority to take action under the provisions of the said Act; provided there has been infraction of law, mentioned therein.

3. It is alleged in the notice that the respondent/writ petitioner is alleged to have contravened the provisions of law, using the forest produce. In sum and substance, it is alleged that Camptothecin is really forest produce without having undergone any radical and real change from raw material.

4. The learned trial Judge did not accept the contention of the appellant that the aforesaid material is a forest produce.

5. The appellant proceeded with the impugned notice dated 16th July, 2005, treating Camptothecin as a forest produce and on the allegation of theft thereof, action was taken.

6. Now, the question is whether Camptothecin can be termed to be a transformed form of forest produce, in any sense, for taking action under the aforesaid Act or not.

7. Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contends that the aforesaid product, though finished one, owes to the original forest produce Mappia Foetida being the raw material and the same is admittedly a forest produce. He draws our attention to the inclusive definition of forest produce as mentioned in section 2 subsection (4) of the said Act, which is as follows :

“Forest produce includes :

(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say – timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua seeds,[kuth] and myrabolams, and

(b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say –

(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees,

(ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants,

(iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals and

(iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including lime-stone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries)

8. To buttress his submission, he has placed reliance on two decisions of Supreme Court (i) A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 120) (The Forest Range Officer and Ors. – vs- Khushboo Enterprise) and (ii) A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2088 (State of M.P. –vs- S.P. Sales Agencies and Ors.).

9. According to Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, having regard to the said two decisions of Supreme Court and also expansive definition, “Camptothecin”, though has undergone a change, retain the original properties and character of forest produce, Mappia Foetida. No explanation has been given regarding the source of the said raw material of the finished product. According to him, the learned trial Judge has missed the aforesaid position of law.

10. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned Counsel countered the submission of Mr. P. R. Mitra relying on the factual findings of the learned trial Judge that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the aforesaid finished product Camptothecin could not be termed to be a forest produce under any stretch of imagination.

11. He has drawn our attention to the flow chart showing emerging of Camptotheci