Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MARY JOSEPH, J.
Jasmon V.P., S/o. Muhammed – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Forest Officer, Divisional Forest Office – Respondent
WP(Crl.) No. 191 of 2022
Decided on : 25-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. K.Rakesh
For the Respondent: Sri.T.P. Sajan, adv
Point of Law: Section 68 of the Act does not mandate that the accused seeking compounding must be present before the authority personally.
Headnote:
Kerala Forest Act, 1961 - Sections 47B, 47C, 47E, 47G and 47H- suspect of commission of offences under Sections 47B, 47C, 47E, 47G and 47H of the Act- Compounding of offence – To compound the offence booked as against the petitioners without insisting the personal appearance of the petitioners and report of the investigating officer.
Finding of the Court :
As per Sub-section (1) of Section 68, any Forest Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests is empowered to accept from any person reasonably suspected of having committed any forest offence other than an offence under Section 62 or Section 65, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which he may have been committed and where any property has been seized from him as liable for confiscation, the officer may release the same on payment of the value thereon as estimated by such officer or confiscate such property to the Government- petitioners can appear personally or through a counsel engaged by them for compounding of the offences and in that event, the 1st respondent shall pass an order as contemplated under Section 68(2).
Result: Writ Petition (Crl.) is allowed
JUDGMENT :
This Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs;
“i) Call for records leading to Exhibit P2 and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;
ii) Declare that the petitioners are entitled to compound the offence as provided under Section 68 of the Kerala Forest Act;
iii) Direct the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P1 afresh and compound the offence booked as against the petitioners without insisting the personal appearance of the petitioners and report of the investigating officer;
iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Writ petitioners are accused in O.R No.05/2021 of Peruvannamuzhi Forest Station registered by the 2nd respondent for offences punishable under Sections 47B, 47C, 47E, 47G and 47H of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (For short, ‘the Act’). The allegation against them was that on 22.09.2021, they were found in possession of 54.3 Kgms of sandal wood, tools and instruments for cutting sandal woods in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-56C-441. All the above offences are compoundable under Section 68 of the Act and thereupon, petitioners filed a compounding petition before the 1st respondent on 26.11.2021, copy of which petition and the postal receipt evidencing the forwarding of the above petition before the 1st respondent are also produced alongwith as Exts.P1 and P1(a). Vide judgment dated 13.12.2021, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 within a time frame, true copy of which judgment is produced alongwith as Ext.P2. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2, the 1st respondent recorded in it’s order passed on 19.01.2022 that the accused did not appear personally on 14.01.2021 but were represented by counsel who laid vakalth for them. It was further recorded that a report of the Investigating Officer is very much essential for compounding the offences and therefore, it was called for from him. It was informed by the Investigating Officer that the accused are not traceable after dismissal of their bail application and therefore they were not interrogated. According to them, therefore a reasonable conclusion on compounding could not be arrived at and accordingly the compounding application was not considered. The true copy of the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the 1st respondent, referred to above is appended to as Ext.P3. In the aforesaid circumstances that the writ petition is filed seeking for the above reliefs.
3. Going by Ext.P3 order under challenge, it is found that the application seeking for compounding was rejected by the 1st respondent, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode and the petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for further interrogation.
Section 68 of the Act being apposite in the context is extracted hereunder;
“68. Power to compound offences. -(1) Any forest Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests may accept from any person, reasonably suspected of having committed any forest offence other than an offence under section 62 or section 65, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which may have been committed and where any property has been seized as liable to confiscation, may release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer or confiscate such property to the Government.
(2) On the payment of such sum of money or such value or both as the case may be, to such officer, the accused person, if in custody shall be discharged, the property seized shall be released and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property.”
4. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 68, any Forest Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests is empowered to accept from any person reasonably suspected of having committed any forest offence other than an offence under Section 62
