Back
1984 Supreme(Ker) 302
High Court of Kerala
K. Sukumaran, J.
Baby - Appellant
Versus
The Forest Range Officer & Ors - Respondent
O.P. No. 6436 of 1984
Decided On : 13-11-1984
The statutory presumption that forest produce belongs to the Government and the duty to protect forest wealth justified the confiscation under the Kerala Forest Act.
Headnote:
Confiscation - Illicit Timber - Kerala Forest Act, sections 52(1), 61A, 27, 69, 61B(2) - The court upheld the confiscation of a lorry and illicit timber under the Kerala Forest Act, emphasizing the stringent measures provided by the legislature to combat illicit activities and the statutory presumption that forest produce belongs to the Government. The court also highlighted the importance of protecting forest wealth and the legislative intent behind the Forest Act, emphasizing the duty of the State and citizens to preserve forests.
Fact of the Case:
A mini lorry carrying illicit timber was intercepted by forest officials and seized. Confiscation proceedings were initiated under sections 52(1) and 61A of the Kerala Forest Act. The appellate court upheld the confiscation, and the orders were challenged in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confiscation was justified under the Kerala Forest Act, emphasizing the statutory presumption that forest produce belongs to the Government and the duty to protect forest wealth. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the confiscation with costs.
Issues: Seizure legality, lack of opportunity to present contentions, justification of confiscation, competence of the officer to initiate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumption under the Kerala Forest Act and the duty to protect forest wealth justified the confiscation. Lack of opportunity to present contentions and the competence of the officer to initiate proceedings were also considered.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the confiscation was upheld with costs.
K. Sukumaran, J.
1. On 27th January 1983 a mini lorry having registration No. KLN 4633 loaded with six logs of timber, without any hammer marks and unaccompanied by any permit, was intercepted by the forest officials, who were patroling Vaniyappara Thodimaram Kolli road. The lorry with the timber was seized after the preparation of a mahazar. A case was registered. Proceedings under sections 52(1) and 61A of the Kerala Forest Act were initiated. The driver on being questioned in the course of the enquiry conducted by the Range Officer stated that the timber was loaded on the basis of the instruction of one Kunhachan, who was also seen in the lorry when it was seized. Kunhachan corroborated the version so given by the driver. He also admitted that the timber was collected from Valanthodu area. As it was revealed that the timber was illicitly collected from the vested forests, it was felt that the offence under sections 52(1) and 61A had been committed.
2. While making further enquiry regarding the ownership of the lorry, it was known that its registration stood in the name P. I. Baby, the petitioner herein. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation, to the registered owner P. I. Baby, the driver Pavithran and Kunhachan, who claimed the ownership of the timber and the lorry at the time of the seizure. The reply was to be submitted on or before 20th July 1983, and the hearing was fixed on 27th July 1983. Despite the receipt of the notices, the driver did not submit any reply. The registered owner P. I. Baby requested the proceedings be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the writ perition (O.P. 5650/83) filed by him. To that effect was the reply of Kunhachan also. It was noted that there were no interim orders in O.P. 5650 of 1983. In that view, further proceedings were pursued by the authorities.
3. There was the admission of the driver and the aforesaid Kunhachan that the logs were loaded at Valanthodu. The worker T. V. John stated that the logs had been cut and collected from the vested forests land in Valanthodu. Concededly the timber was not covered by any transport permit. The investigation of the Range Officer, Kuthuparamba also revealed that the timber had been collected from the vested forest. It was accordingly concluded that the timber was the property of the Government. An offence under the Forest Act was found to be established under section 27, inasmuch as there was illicit possession and removal of timber without passes. On a consideration of various other matters, the lorry and the timber were directed to be confiscated. Ext. P-1 order was passed on 19th August 1983, directing, confiscation of the lorry and the timber.
4. The matter was taken in appeal before the District Court, Tellicherry. By Ext. P-2 Judgment, dated 7th January 1984, the appeal was dismissed.
5 The appellate court noted that the appellant registered owner of the vehicle had not availed of the opportunity afforded to him to put forward his contentions before Ext.P-1 order was passed. On merits also, the contentions were rejected. One such contention was that Kunhachan was entrusted with the lorry under an agreement and that the timber was loaded by the lorry driver at the instance of Kunhachan. Though such agreement was referred to by the appellant, no such agreement had been produced. The appellate authority noted that if the lorry had been handed over to Kunhachan and thereafter to the driver, they would be the agents of the appellant. In that event, it was for the appellant to prove that the illicit transport was without his knowledge and consent. No such attempt was made by him. The reliance placed on the decision in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala1980 K.L.T. 671 was found to be misplaced due to the difference in the factual situation. The appellate Judge concluded:
"It is taking very serious view of the illicit on-slaught on the forest wealth of the country, illicit felling and destruction and of full-time thieving.. that the
