ORDER

Dated this the 06th day of February, 2024 The Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam has filed this revision petition, aggrieved by the judgment in CMA No.85 of 2014 of the Additional District Court-IV, Thoduppuzha. The impugned judgment was rendered in an appeal filed by the respondents under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the petitioner confiscating their lorry bearing registration No.KL-6C 9538. The essential facts are as under;

The Forest Officials under the Kaliyar Range got information that an Anjili tree standing in the property of one Antony @ Jovachan had been felled and the logs removed unauthorisedly. Based on the information, the property was inspected on 21.02.2009 and it was found that the tree had been cut. The officers also got information that the tree had been transported to two sawmills at Kodikulam in the lorry bearing registration No.KL-6C 9538. Based on the incident, OR No.7/2009 was registered at the Kaliyar Range. Later, the lorry belonging to the respondents was confiscated under Section 61A of the Act.

2. While the proceedings under the Forest Act was initiated on the premise that the Anjili tree was cut from Government land, the specific case of the respondents is that the tree was cut from the 10 cents of land for which patta was granted to Antony @ Jovachan as per LA Nos.48 of 1999 and 109 of 1999. In appeal, the court below found that there was inordinate delay in confiscating the vehicle and the petitioner had failed to prove that the tree was cut from Government land, so as to confiscate the vehicle under Section 61A of the Forest Act. The appellate court also found that the only evidence against the respondents is the alleged confession statements of the persons who had cut the trees and are made accused in the crime. As the alleged confession was made before the Forest officials, the appellate court held the evidence to be unreliable. It was also noted that inasmuch as the owner of the property was issued with a patta and the dispute as to whether the tree was cut from patta land or forest land remains unresolved, the respondents cannot be attributed with the knowledge that the Anjili tree was cut from forest land. Based on the said reasoning, it was held that the presumption under Section 69 of the Forest Act is not attracted.

3. I heard learned Special Government Pleader and learned Counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that the respondents having failed to rebut the presumption under Section 69 of the Forest Act, by proving that, reasonable care and precaution had been taken to prevent commission of the offence using their vehicle, the court below committed gross illegality in allowing the appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the vehicle was hired by informing the respondents that it is to be used for transporting timber cut from patta land. To convince the respondents, a copy of patta was also shown to them. As such, there is no reason for the respondents to suspect that the timber is cut from forest land. In such circumstances, the vehicle cannot be seized on the premise that the respondents had failed to take reasonable care and precaution to prevent commission of the offence.

6. Even the petitioner do not have a case that the respondents were directly involved in the felling of the tree. The only role attributed to the respondents is of having let out their vehicle on hire for transporting timber. Here, it is pertinent to note that the respondents were made to believe that the timber was cut from patta land. As a matter of fact, the alleged owner of the property holds a patta for 10 cents of land. Except contending that the timber is cut from forest land, no effort is taken to prove the fact. In such circumstances, the vehicle cannot be seized alleging that the timber is cut from forest land and the respondents had failed to take reasonable care and precaution to prevent tra