The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent conditions imposed by Sec. 61-B(2) of the Kerala Forest Act, requiring the owner to establish innocence and precautionary measures by the person in charge of the vehicle to retrieve the confiscated vehicle, in order to prevent illicit transport of forest produce and protect public interest.

Thomas, ag. CJ.

During the early hours of 14th February, 1990 a pick up van was intercepted by a police patrol party as the van was transporting sawn timber pieces. As the police were satisfied that the vehicle was being used for illicit transportation of forest produce, they seized the vehicle as well as the contraband timber and handed them over to the Divisional Forest Officer ('DFO' for short). Driver of the van and two other passengers therein were arrested. The D.F.O. initiated proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle as it was used for committing a forest offence. After hearing the owner of the vehicle the D.F.O. ordered confiscation of both (timber pieces and the van) as per Sec. 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act (for short 'the Act'). The order of confiscation (Ext. P1) was challenged by the vehicle owner in appeal filed under Sec. 61-D of the Act. Learned District Judge, who heard the appeal, allowed it and annulled the order of confiscation of the vehicle (Ext. P2 judgment). State of Kerala filed the present Original Petition in challenge of Ext. P2. As it was dismissed by the learned single judge, this appeal has been filed before the Division Bench under Sec. 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

2. Though the District Judge found that the vehicle was used for committing a forest offence, he took view that owner of the vehicle (first respondent) has satisfied the conditions in Sec. 61-B of the Act and on that premise annulled the confiscation order. Learned District Judge has mentioned in Ext. P2 judgment that first respondent had no knowledge that contraband timber was loaded in the van and that he had given instructions to the driver that timber unsupported by pass should not be carried in the vehicle.

3. Learned Government Pleader contended that findings of the District Judge, even if sustained, are insufficient to annul the confiscation order in as much as there is no finding that driver of the vehicle was also unaware of the illicit transportation of forest produce.

4. Sec. 61-B contains two sub-sections. The first sub-section says that no order of confiscation shall be made without giving notice to the person from whom it was seized informing him of the grounds for confiscation and affording him an opportunity of making representation. Sub-section (2) contains a further restriction against confiscation. It says that no order of confiscation shall be made if the owner of the vehicle proves that it was used in carrying the timber "without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the vehicle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use".

5. The restriction against confiscation contained in sub-section (2) can operate only on the combination of three postulates. First is that the owner or his agent was totally unaware of the illicit use. Second is that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. Third is, the person in charge of the vehicle had also taken reasonable and necessary precaution against such use. If the owner succeeds in satisfying only the first two postulates, he would not get the benefit of the restriction against confiscation. The third condition is as important as the other two and unless that also is established no advantage would practically enure to the owner of the vehicle. Sub-section (2) would remain at bay if the third condition remains unsatisfied.

6. The contention that such a strict view would adversely affect an innocent vehicle owner cannot be countenanced since any narrow or liberal interpretation of confiscatory provisions in the Act can eventually lead to disastrous consequences for forest wealth which is a very endangered bounty of nature. The idea behind extension of confiscatory provisions to vehicles etc., is to convey a peremptory and explicit message to the vehicle owners not to allow their vehicles to be used for depletion of forest wealth. If any