MANOHARAN, J.

This petition is to quash the proceedings in C.R. No. 35 of 1992 taken under S. 51(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner contends that the charge is not maintainable as 'sandalwood oil' is not a 'forest produce'. In support of the said contention, petitioner relied on the decision of the learned single Judge in Cri.M.C. No. 832 of 1992 (Annexure XV) wherein the learned single Judge held that sandalwood oil is not a forest produce.

2. When this matter came up for admission before another learned single Judge, his Lordship doubted the correctness of the decision in Cri M.C. No. 832 of 1992 (Mohammed Ali v. Forest Range Officer, (1992) 2 Ker LT 502) and expressed the view that the matter has to be considered by a Division Bench. That is how this came up before us.

3. Brief facts required for the disposal of the petition are as follows :

Petitioner is a dealer in essential oils like Citronella Oil, Sandalwood Oil etc. Pursuant to an order received from M/s. S.S. Perfumers, Kanpur to supply 200 kgs. of Sandalwood Oil, petitioner despatched the same from Kozhikode Railway Station as per Invoice No. 16 dated 12-6-1992 (Annexure IX). When the consignment reached Palakkad Railway Station in the evening of the same day, first respondent seized the consignment on the ground that the petitioner has committed an offence under S. 51(1) of the Act. Petitioner alleges that the sandalwood oil is not a 'wood oil' and hence is not a 'forest produce' within the meaning of S. 2(f)(1) of the Act; consequently, the whole proceedings in vitiated. According to the petitioner, only natural produce can be 'forest produce', that since 'sandalwood oil' is attracted by distillation which is a manufacturing process, the same is not a 'forest produce', and that the only oil known as 'wood oil' is the oil collected by exudation for living Dipterocarpus trees.

4. On the other hand the learned Director General of Prosecution contended, sandalwood oil is 'wood oil' and hence is forest produce within the meaning of the Act and that simply because the same is extracted will not alter its character. So long as sandalwood oil is produced from sandalwood; and sandal trees grow only in the forest sandalwood oil also is wood oil. According to the learned Director General of Prosecution the scope of the definition is such that it is inescapable that the definition of 'forest produce' in S. 2(f) of the Act will take in sandalwood oil also. On the other hand the attempt of the learned counsel for the petitioner was to show that the wood oil is only the proper name of oleoresin collected from living Dipterocarpus trees. Consequently, the same is a forest produce, but not sandalwood oil. The rival contentions bring to the forefront the question as to the scope of definition 'forest produce' in S. 2(f) of the Act. For a proper appreciation of the contentions, it is necessary to read S. 2(f) of the Act. S. 2(f) of the Act reads: -

"2(f) "forest produce" includes -

(i) the following whether found in or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say, - timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, (resin, natural varnish), bark lac, fibres and roots of sandalwood land rosewood; and

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

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

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

(c) silk cocoona, honey and wax;

(d) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including limestone, laterite), mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries),"

When a provision in the statute admits of no ambiguity the words therein have to be assigned their natural meaning.

5. At page 65 Craies on Statute Law - Sixth Edition, it is stated :

"The safer and more correct course of dealing with a question of construction is to take the words themselves and arriv