IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 740 of 2005()
1. K. THAJUDEEN, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DIVISIONAL
... Respondent
2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KASARAGOD.
3. STATE, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :07/12/2007
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 740 OF 2005
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the registered owner of mini lorry, bearing
Registration No.KL-7/G-3639. The petitioner challenges the judgment
dated 31.3.2005 in C.M.A.No.32 of 1999, on the file of the District Court,
Kasaragod, by which the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the
Authorised Officer under the Kerala Forest Act confiscating the vehicle
and the teak logs transported in the said vehicle, under Section 61A of the
Kerala Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. In the night of 16.7.1997, the Sub Inspector of Police, Adhur,
seized the mini lorry mentioned above on finding that the vehicle was
being used for transporting two wooden logs (teak), which is a forest
produce. There was no document authorising transport of the teak logs.
After seizing the vehicle, the Sub Inspector of Police hand over the vehicle
to the forest officials and a report was also submitted. The vehicle was
produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur, who was the
Authorised Officer under Section 61A of the Act. An enquiry was
conducted by the Range Officer and a report was submitted to the
Authorised Officer.
3. The owner of the vehicle got possession of the vehicle as per
C.R.P.NO. 740 OF 2005
:: 2 ::
the order passed by this Court in O.P.No.7972 of 1998, on furnishing
bank guarantee. Proceedings were initiated by the Authorised Officer
under Section 61A of the Act. Notice was issued to the petitioner, the
driver of the vehicle and the other persons involved in the illegal transport
of the forest produce. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted an
application for release of the vehicle.
4. The Authorised Officer considered the statements of the driver
and other persons who were involved in the offending act, the report
submitted by the forest officials and other facts and circumstances and it
was held that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated under Section 61A
of the Act. It was found by the Authorised Officer that illegal
transportation of forest produce was established in the case. It was also
found that the case put forward by the owner of the vehicle that he was
unaware of the illegal transportation of timber, is unbelievable and against
truth. The Authorised Officer took note of the fact that the owner of the
vehicle had not taken any action against the driver of the vehicle for
unauthorised use of the vehicle. According to the Authorised Officer, this
is one circumstance which would indicate that the owner of the vehicle
was aware of the illegal transportation of timber. The finding rendered by
the Authorised Officer is that the timber belongs to the Government and
that it was removed from the nearby forest or the land belonging to the
C.R.P.NO. 740 OF 2005
:: 3 ::
Government. The Authorised Officer held that the vehicle was liable to be
confiscated.
5. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned District Judge
considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on
record and heard the counsel for the appellant. The findings and
conclusions arrived at by the Authorised Officer were confirmed by the
court below after considering the materials on record. The contention that
no sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to appear before
the Authorised Officer was negatived by the court below. The court below
also took note of the fact that the revision petitioner, who is the owner of
the vehicle, had filed a statement that he had already disposed of the
vehicle. However, he got the vehicle released in his favour by filing a Writ
Petition before the High Court. It was found that the appellant before the
court below (revision petitioner herein) had no subsisting interest in
respect of the vehicle. The finding by the Authorised Officer that the
timber satisfied the definition of the forest produce was confirmed and it
was found that the ingredients of Section 61A are attracted. It is not
established by the revision petitioner that he had taken reasonable and
necessary precautions to see that no forest offence is committed, as
provided in sub-section (2) of Section 61B.
C.R.P.NO. 740 OF 2005
:: 4 ::
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order
passed by the Authorised Officer would indicate that rival claims were put
forward by the Forest Range Officer, Sulliya and the Forest Range Officer,
Puthur that the timber was removed from the forest within their respective
jurisdictions. The counsel pointed out that it is not established from where
the trees were cut and in spite of specific directions, a joint verification by
the Range Officers concerned was not conducted. According to the
counsel for the petitioner, this itself is sufficient to hold that the ingredients
of Section 61A are not made out. I am unable to accept this contention.
Whether it is cut from a particular forest or not, that does not take away
the case out of the purview of Section 61A. The question is whether the
transportation as alleged was in respect of a forest produce. The timber
involved in the case is teak. For transportation of teak, necessary pass
issued by the Forest Officials was necessary. Necessary marks shall also
be put on the timber by the Forest Officials. At the time of seizure, the
driver of the vehicle or the persons who were found in the vehicle could
not produce any document to establish that the transportation of timber
was authorised and necessary pass for the same was issued by any
competent authority. The revision petitioner has no case that the timber
was transported with valid pass and other supporting documents. There
is also no case that the timber was not being transported in the vehicle.
The statement given by one Mohammed before the Range Officer would
C.R.P.NO. 740 OF 2005
:: 5 ::
indicate that the timber belonged to one Zainul Abidheen Thangal and it
was loaded from the side of the public road. He also stated that he was
told that Zainul Abidheen Thangal purchased the same from some other
person. The driver of the vehicle also gave statement before the Range
Officer that the timber belongs to Zainul Abidheen Thangal. The timber
was loaded from the side of the public road. The driver was not aware of
the place from where the timber was cut. The driver has not taken any
precaution to see that the timber loaded in the vehicle was of lawful origin
and that the transportation of the same was legal and proper. The
statement of Zainul Abidheen Thangal would indicate that he purchased
the timber from one person belonging to Mulleria. The name and address
of that person was not disclosed. In short, none of the persons who were
examined by the Range Officer and none of the persons who gave
statement before the Range Officer did disclose the correct facts. Simply
because the stump of the tree was not located or simply because that it is
not established that the timber was cut from the forest within the territorial
jurisdiction of a particular Forest Range Office, it cannot be said that
Section 61A is not attracted.
7. The Authorised Officer and the learned District Judge have
considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in great detail and
held that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated. I do not see any ground to
C.R.P.NO. 740 OF 2005
:: 6 ::
interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below. I concur
with the the conclusions and reasonings made by the authorities below.
The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/