Confiscation of property under the Kerala Forest Act is justified only if a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of government property.

There are 3 petitioners in the above Original Petition. The first petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing registration No. KLU 7270. The registration of the above lorry stands in the name of one Lalithambika. The first petitioner had purchased the said lorry although the registration has not been transferred in his name. The 2nd petitioner is an owner of a timber depot at Quilon and the 3rd petitioner is the owner of a furniture depot.

2. In the auction conducted by the Forest Department, one Shajahan had purchased some teak poles from the govt. teak plantation. For transporting the said teak poles, the Forest Range Officer, Neduvathumuri Forest Range, issued a permit on 18-6-1987. The validity of the above permit was till 25-7-1987.

3. These teak poles were kept in the depot belonging to the 2nd petitioner. Out of the teak poles, 100 teak poles had been sold by the 2nd petitioner to the 3rd petitioner and the same had been transported in the lorry belonging to the first petitioner bearing registration No. KLU 7270 to Chovallur in Trichur District. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent had hired the said lorry and transported the teak poles on the strength of the above permit and on the basis of a cash bill issued by the 2nd petitioner in favour of the 3rd petitioner. The lorry was seized by the Forest officials on 28-7-1987 from Chovoor near Trichur. According to the Forest officials, a forest offence has been committed in respect of the 100 teak poles which belong to the government without any valid permit for transmuting the same. The lorry as well as the teak poles were produced before the first respondent, Authorised Officer Authorised Officer has issued a show cause notice to the petitioners directing them 10 show cause why the lorry should not be confiscated under S.61A of the Kerala Forest Act. As stated earlier, the forest offence alleged to have been committed by the. petitioners with the help of the driver and cleaner of the lorry is transporting it poles without any valid permit as required under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Kerala = ,t m Produce Transit Rules, 1975. Out of the 100 teak poles, it was found by the Forest officials that 6 teak poles are the property belonging to the Government. It is also alleged that the first petitioner who is the owner of the said lorry did not take any precautionary measures against the use of the lorry in committing the forest offence.

4. The first petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation wherein he has stated that he has not committed any forest offence. He has taken sufficient precautionary measures against the use of lorry in committing any forest offence. The teak poles were purchased by the 3rd petitioner from the 2nd petitioner and the same was transported under a permit. The teak poles were originally purchased by the above-named Shajahan from the Neduvathumuri Forest Range and kept in the depot of the 2nd petitioner and hence no forest offence has been committed by them. The first petitioner also contended before the first respondent that the driver has transported the teak poles on the strength of a valid transit permit and on the basis of the bill issued by the 2nd petitioner.

5. The first respondent considered the matter and found that out of the 100 teak poles seized under the mahazar, 6 teak poles are not the teak poles removed from the Neduvathumuri Range and the balance 94 teak poles are those collected and removed from the Neduvathumuri Range on the basis of the auction. He has also found that the 6 teak poles are the property belonging to Government as contemplated in S.69 of the Kerala Forest Act, since no private proprietory ship right on those poles could not be proved. Hence, he found that the 6 teak poles out of the 100 teak poles seized as per the mahazar are liable for confiscation to Government under S.61A of the Act. He has further found that the remaining 94 teak poles are the property of the 3rd petitioner. The first res