Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17801
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHIRCY V., J
E.K.HANEEFA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/4495/2013
SRI.P.M.POULOSE
Landowners in non-notified areas may cut and transport trees under specific provisions, exempting them from forest offence allegations.
Headnote:
Timber - Forest Offence - Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules 1975, Section 3(iii), Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act 2005, Section 6 - The petitioner transported timber cut from private land, asserting no forest offence occurred as per law. The court upheld this, referencing essential legal provisions that authorized such actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged for transporting timber without a transit pass. He argued that the timber was cut from private land, not forest land, and thus no offence occurred under the relevant forest laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the legality of the timber transport and determined that the trees were cut from privately owned non-forest land, entitling the petitioner to transport them without violating forest regulations.
Issues: Whether the petitioner committed a forest offence by transporting timber without a transit pass when the timber was cut from private land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that under Section 6(1) of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, the owner has the right to cut and transport trees from private land, and the prosecution failed to establish that the trees were from forest land.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charges against the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the sole accused in OR.No.24/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha registered for the offence under Rule 3 (iii) punishable under Section 23(1) of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules 1975 (for short 'the Rules').
2. The prosecution allegation is as follows:
The petitioner has transported 47 pieces of teak-Irul, 4 pieces of Kumbil Irul, 20 pieces of teak Irul and 2 pieces of Marudi Irul timber without transit pass issued from the Forest Department and stacked in a house by name 'Elavumthadathil' at 'Madakkathanam' and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted that the petitioner has entered into an agreement for sale with one Jose, son of Kaavukatt Augasthi and Antony, son of Kaavukatt Kurian on 3.3.2011 and cut down 32 trees of teak and some trees of Irul and Marudi from their private property for consideration and transported and stacked in his premises. The trees were cut and removed in the month of March 2011. On 6.9.2012, the officials of the Forest Department booked him for the offence aforesaid in OR.No.24/2012. According to the learned counsel, no forest offence has been committed by this petitioner as the trees were cut and removed from the private property owned by the aforementioned Jose and Antony for valuable consideration and hence the registration of the case by the forest officials against him has to be quashed and hence this petition. He relies on Annexure 1, the agreement executed by him with Sri Jose and Sri Antony as early as on 3.3.2011. Annexure 2 is the charge sheet filed against this petitioner for having committed an offence under Rule 3 (iii) and punishable under 23 (1 )of the Rules.
4. To appreciate the controversy it is apposite to reiterate the relevant provision of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, which reads as follows:
“3(iii) transport timber or other forest produce by land, by rail or by water in any part of the State, unless such timber or other forest produce is accompanied by a pass required by these rules, and unless the timber is stamped by a Government stamp or a stamp registered as laid down in Rule 11.”
An offence is said to have been committed under this provision if one transport timber or other forest produce without the required pass issued by the officials. Rule 23 provides the penalty for violation of the provisions of rule.
Forest produce is defined in Rule 2(c) as follows:
“2(c). forest produce in transit includes 'forest produce' as defined in sub-clause(f), timber as defined in sub-clause (k), and 'tree' as defined in sub-clause (l) of Section 2 of the Act , found on or on the margin of any public road, whether loaded in carts or other vehicles or not and forest produce found in any river or stream whether tied into rafts or not.”
Forest produce is defined in Kerala Forest Act as follows:
“2(f): forest produce includes-
(i) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say-
timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, fibres and roots of sandalwood and rosewood; and (ii) the following when found in, or brought from, a forest, that is to say,-
(a) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not herein before mentioned, of trees;
(b) plants not being trees(including grass, creepers, reeds and moss) and all parts or produce of such plants; and ( c) silk, cocoons, honey and wax;
(d) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including limestone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries)
2(k) “timber” includes trees when they have fallen or have been felled, and all wood, whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not, and
5. On a meticulous examination of Annexure 2 and other documents available, it could be seen that the forest officials have no case that the trees stacked at the residence of the petitioner were cut and removed from the forest
