Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13641
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PUNALUR – Appellant
Versus
ROHINI – Respondent
CRP 265 2020
SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.V.S.MANSOOR SMT.BINU K.B.SMT.YADUKRISHNAN N., ADV.C.U.SANGEETH
Confiscation orders require clear evidence of illegal activity which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case.
Headnote:
Confiscation - Civil Revision Petition - Kerala Forest Act Sections [61A, 61B, 61D] - The court upheld the appellate decision allowing the respondent's appeal against the confiscation order, indicating insufficient suspicion of illegal activity regarding the alleged illicit cane transport.
Fact of the Case:
The Divisional Forest Officer filed a revision petition against an appellate order which allowed the respondent's challenge to confiscation of her vehicle used in transporting allegedly illicit canes, seized during a police operation.
Issues: Whether the procedural and factual basis for confiscating the vehicle under the Kerala Forest Act was adequately established.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of reasonable suspicion regarding the nature of the canes transported led the appellate court to reverse the confiscation order.
Final Decision: Civil revision petition is dismissed.
O R D E R
The Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur has filed this Civil Revision Petition, aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Court, Kollam allowing the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act . The appeal was filed challenging the confiscation order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer exercising his power under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act . The essential facts are as under;
O.R.No.4/2015 was registered by the Anchal Forest Range Officer alleging illicit transportation of 780 canes. The respondent's autorickshaw, bearing registration No.KL-25 A/8475, was seized on 17/07/2015 on the allegation that it was the vehicle in which the cane was transported. Two tribal youth, who allegedly cut and removed the cane were arrayed as the first and second accused, the driver of the autorickshaw as the 3rd accused and the respondent as the 4th accused, in her capacity as owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was later released to the respondent on interim custody on her executing a bank guarantee for Rs.25,000/-.
While so, the revision petitioner initiated proceedings for confiscating the vehicle and to that end, issued a notice under Section 61B of the Forest Act. Thereafter, a confiscation order was passed, as provided under Section 61A . Aggrieved by the order, the respondent preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge finding that the first and the second accused being persons belonging to the tribal community, there was no reason for the respondent to suspect that the cane in their possession was illicitly cut from the forest. The court also noticed that the cane was packed in plastic bags and the driver would not have been able to identify the product loaded in the autorickshaw by the first and second accused. The value of the product, which is Rs.412/-, also prompted the learned Judge to pass the impugned order.
2. Although learned Special Government Pleader raised various contentions assailing the appellate order, I find no reason to interfere with the order. Indisputably, the vehicle was released to the respondent's custody on 25/09/2015 and the value of the alleged illicit cane is only Rs.412/-. Therefore, despite the challenge against the finding that the first and the second accused being persons belonging to the tribal community, the driver could not have suspected that the cane was being illegally cut and removed from the forest, I refrain from interfering with the impugned order.
In the result, civil revision petition is dismissed.
