Confiscation of property under Section 61A(2) of the Kerala Forest Act requires that the property be owned by the Government of Kerala; otherwise, the order is illegal.

ORDER

Could the authorised officer confiscate a property which is either admitted or proved to be not belonging to the Government of Kerala together with the vehicle etc used to transport such property under Sectin 61A(2) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)?

That is the question I am called upon to answer in this revision arising from judgment of learned District Judge in C.M.A.No.8 of 2006 confirming order No.W4-3397 of 2004 dated 27-06-2005 of the Wild Life Warden, Waynad Wild Life Division, Sulthan Bathery, (for short, “the Authorised Officer”).

2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the question are:

On 08-08-2004 at about 9.30 p.m the forest officials intercepted lorry bearing reg. No. KL-11/E 4995 carrying bunches of banana covered with banana leaves at the forest check post at Tholpetty. On examination it was found that the lorry was carrying sawn and sized rosewood logs. The driver took to his heels. The lorry and rosewood logs were seized on preparing a mahazar. Petitioners later produced some documents before the forest officials claiming that the rosewood logs were purchased from one Mathew and Subramanian. The Forest Range Officer produced the rosewood logs and lorry before the authorised officer as provided under Section 61A (1) of the Act (as if the rosewood logs were property of the Government). The authorized officer gave notice to the petitioners as required under Section 61B(1)(a) of the Act but they did not respond. The authorised officer passed the impugned order confiscating the rosewood logs and lorry holding that the rosewood logs are property of the Government. Petitioners challenged the order before the learned District Judge. Learned District Judge did not accept claim of petitioners that the rosewood logs were collected from Mathew and Subramanian and confirmed the order of confiscation. That judgment is under challenge. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that there is sufficient evidence to show that petitioners collected the rosewood logs from Mathew and Subramanian as the documents produced before the forest officials revealed. It is also contended that at any rate, even going by the version of the forest officials the rosewood logs were brought from the forests of Karnataka State in which case, it cannot be said to be property of “the Government” meaning thereby the Government of Kerala and hence confiscation under Section 61A (2) of the Act is illegal. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision inBhargavan Vs. Divisional Forest Officer ( 1994(1) KLT 29 ). Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contend that petitioners had not taken part in the enquiry conducted by the authorised officer. There is no evidence to show that the rosewood logs were collected from Mathew or Subramanian as contended by petitioners. Petitioners, without obtaining pass as required under the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”) has imported the rosewood logs into the State of Kerala and thereby committed a 'forest offence' in respect of the said rosewood logs. It is contended that to order confiscation under Section 61A (2) of the Act it is not necessary that property should belong to the Government of Kerala. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, having regard to the objective of incorporating Sections 61A to F in the Act this court has to adopt a purposive interpretation. It is also contended by learned Special Government Pleader that as per the definition of the expression “the Government” in Section 3 (23) of the General Clauses Act (1897), the expression could mean any State Government. Learned Special Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decisions inRamrichpal Agarwalla and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1958 Calcutta 257) andThe Election Commission of India Vs. Nem Chandra Jain and Ors. ( AIR 1984 SC 399 ).

3. It is not in dispute that the lorry together with the rosewood log