The court confirmed that under the Forest Act, confiscation of vehicles used in forest offenses does not require proportionality between the offense and the imposed penalty.

O R D E R

Two Mahindra Pickup Jeeps belonging to the petitioner were seized by forest officials on 03.01.2015 on the allegation that the vehicles were being used for illegal transportation of timber cut down from the Uppukunnu Girijan settlement. Later, the petitioner was issued with notice under Section 61B of the Forest Act proposing to confiscate the vehicle. In spite of the explanation offered, the authorised Officer passed an order of confiscation under Section 61A of the Act. The appeal preferred against that order also being dismissed, this revision petition is filed.

2. Apart from attacking the confiscation on other grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the value of the timber seized from the petitioner's vehicles being only Rs.3,500/-, confiscation of the vehicles is a grossly disproportionate penal action. Referring to Section 61A (2), it is contended that the legislature has consciously used the word 'may' in relation to the power of confiscation, so as to vest the Authorised Officer with the discretion to decide whether the vehicle is to be confiscated or not. Therefore, in appropriate cases the authorised Officer can release the vehicle unconditionally or on payment of penalty. According to the learned Counsel, in the case at hand the authorised Officer should have released the vehicles, exercising the discretion. 3. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader contended that no discretion is vested with the Authorised Officer and once the seized article is found to be forest produce, the vehicle is also liable to be confiscated. Reliance is placed by the Special Government Pleader on the Full Bench decision of this Court inState of Kerala v. Sukumara Panicker ( 1987 KHC 457 ), to contend that, in ordering confiscation of the vehicle used in connection with the forest offence, there is no question of proportionality between the offence committed and the punishment levied.

4. As the contention is based on Section 61A (2), the said provision is extracted hereunder;

“

61A(2); Where an authorised officer seizes under sub-

section(1) of section 52 any timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory which is the property of the Government, or where any such property is produced before an authorised officer under sub-section (1) of this section and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of such property, such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such forest offence, order confiscation of the property so seized together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence.”

5. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Full Bench, the contention regarding proportionality can only be rejected.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that, since the vehicles would have sustained substantial damages during the past 8 years, the Authorised Officer may be directed to release the vehicle by permitting the petitioner to remit its present value. Although I am not inclined to issue such a direction, it is made clear that if such a request is made, the Authorised Officer can take appropriate decision.

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation.