Whether the owners of a private property cutting trees from his own property could be prosecuted, is the question to be settled in this petition.

2. O.R. No.19/2009 of Pariyaram forest range was registered under Annexure-A occurrence report in form No.1, under Section 69, 61A, 63 and 52 of Kerala Forest Act, 1961 against the petitioners on the allegation that seven live teak trees and two dry teak trees standing in the private property of petitioners 4 to 8 were cut and made into pieces and transported in KL-06A 5157 mini lorry. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A report contending that when the trees were admittedly standing in the private properties of the petitioners 4 o 8, and were not cut from any forest land, Kerala Forest Act is not attracted and therefore, petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 52, 61A, 63 and on that sole ground the occurrence report is to be quashed. It is also contended that cutting of teak trees from private property is not an offence under The Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Selling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995 or under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 and as there is no prohibition for cutting teak trees from the compound of any residential building and as the trees were cut from the private properties of petitioners 4 to 8 the proceedings is to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. The learned counsel relying on a decision of this court in Augustine Mathew v. State of Kerala (2009(3) KLT 560) argued that in an identical case this court has already quashed the proceedings invoking the powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code finding that cutting of trees from a private property by its owner is not an offence either under The Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Selling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995 or Kerala Preservation of Trees Act 1986 and hence the proceedings is to be quashed. Relying on the decision of the learned Single Bench in Bhargavan v. Divisional Forest Officer (1994(1) KLT 29) the learned counsel also argued that when cutting of teak trees from the private property is not an offence, transportation of teak tree logs in a vehicle, from a private property is also not an offence and if so the vehicle is not liable for confiscation.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the trees were cut in this case from Pariyaram village, which is a notified area under Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Area Act and under the said Act if the specified tree is cut from a notified area without permission, it is an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and even if Kerala Forest Act is not applicable, petitioners are liable for the offence under Section 7 of that Act and hence the case cannot be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that applicability of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act was not considered by the learned Single Judge in Augastin Mathews case. (supra)

6. The learned Single Judge in Augastin's case did not consider the question whether the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is attracted or not. In that case action was taken by the Forest authorities for cutting and removing teak trees from the residential compound of the petitioners therein. This court considered the question whether it would amount an offence under The Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Selling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules 1995 or Kerala Preservation of Trees Act and found that both the said Acts do not prohibit cutting of teak trees from the private residential property of the owner and hence quashed the proceedings. The applicability of Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Act was not considered a