Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23791
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, Ziyad Rahman A. A, JJ
RASHEEDALI K.M – Appellant
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR NORTH – Respondent
WA 1879 2014
SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SMT.SMITHA BABU
The court affirmed that machinery used in sawmills is included under 'tools' subject to seizure under the Kerala Forest Act, thereby broadening the interpretation of applicable offences related to forest preservation.
Headnote:
Seizure - Machinery - Kerala Forest Act 1961 - Sections 27, 52, 61A, 61B - The court interpreted sections relating to the seizure and confiscation of tools and machinery used in the commission of forest offences, emphasizing strict construction favoring the citizen, while affirming machinery's inclusion under 'tools'.
Fact of the Case:
The case concerned the legality of seizing machinery in a sawmill under the Kerala Forest Act, based on the allegation that it was used for sawing illegally felled timber. The learned judge referred questions about the interpretation of relevant sections of the Act, challenging previous decisions regarding the nature of tools and machinery for seizure.
Issues: Whether machinery in a sawmill is subject to seizure under the Kerala Forest Act when used in the unlawful sawing of timber from a reserved forest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the intent of the legislature was to prevent illegal forest activities, extending liability for actions and their consequences outside the forest confines. It decreed that machinery should be treated as tools under the Act, underscoring adherence to strict interpretation principles.
Final Decision: The writ petition and appeal are dismissed, allowing the state to proceed with confiscation.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA 1943 W.P(C) NO.22429 OF 2017 PETITIONER/S:
JOHN.V.P., S/O.PORINCHU, VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, ATTUPURAM, AYROOR P.O., NORTH KUTHIYATHODU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT/S:
1 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR–680 001.
2 RANGE FOREST OFFICER, PATTIKKAD FOREST STATION, THRISSUR–680 001.
3 DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MANNAMANGALAM, THRISSUR–680 001.
R1-R3 BY SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER (FOREST)
SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.09.2021, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1879/2014, THE COURT ON 30.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA 1943 W.A.NO.1879 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.5823/2014 DATED 21.10.2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
RASHEEDALI K.M., S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, KALLIDUMBIL HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR (NORTH), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679329.
2 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE, VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679333.
R1&R2 BY SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER (FOREST)
SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.09.2021, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO.22429/2017-C, THE COURT ON 30.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-“C.R”
K.Vinod Chandran & Ziyad Rahman A.A., JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C)No.22429 of 2017-C & W.A.No.1879 of 2014 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th September 2021
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
Whether the machinery in a sawmill is liable to seizure under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 ['Forest Act' for brevity], a precursor to confiscation, on the ground that it had been used to saw timber illegally felled or removed from a reserved forest?
2. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P(C)No.22429 of 2017, doubted the correctness of the decision of another learned Single Judge in Moosa v. Authorised Officer [2014 (2) KHC 731]. The Learned Single Judge who referred the matter, was of the opinion that an offence under Section 27 (1)(e)(iii) of the Act would attract seizure of tools used for sawing timber in the reserved forest and not machinery in a sawmill. Confiscation, being a penal provision has to be construed strictly and when there are two views possible, the Court should lean in favour of the person on whom the penalty is to be imposed, was the observation. The legislature has failed to explain unambiguously, the 'tools used in committing offence', the implementing officer cannot seize the tools used for sawing such timber, that too in far off places and a contrary interpretation would put to peril the prospects of a sawmill owner who will have to conduct a roving enquiry into the antecedents of every customer who approaches him. The learned Single Judge opined that such a seizure and confiscation was not intended by the legislature, from Section 52 .
-3. This Court in Kallara Sukumaran v. Union of India [ 1987 (1) KLT 22 6] held that when a learned Single Judge refers a question, then the entire case would have to be referred. The Writ Appeal is from an order which declined similar contentions by a sawmill owner. We propose to answer the reference and then consider the cases on merits. 4. Sri.M.P. Madhavankutty, appearing for the writ petitioner, asserts that Section 27 (1)(e)(iii) only takes in the cutting of trees from the reserved forest, meaning the offence committed inside the forest. It is also argued that there are various other enactments and statutory rules for the preservation of trees and promotion of tree growth; which have not been invoked agains
