FOREST RANGE OFFICER AND ORS. versus P.MOHAMMED ALI AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 04-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
) --
FOREST RANGE OFFICER AND ORS. 
v. 
P.MOHAMMED ALI AND ORS. 
MAY 4, 199~ 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SABAi, JJ.] 
The Kerala Forest Act, 1961: 
S.2 (j)-Forest Produce-Wood oil-Sandalwood oil-Held, is wood oil 
and a forest produce. 
Ss. 52,54-Forest offence-Accused-Man.ufacturinglfound in possession 
of sandalwood oil-Trial-Held, trial court has jurisdiction to proceed with trial. 
lntep!J!UUit:m of statute: 
Doctrine of Purposive interpretation-Applied. 
Words and Phrases: 
"include", "wood oil" -S. 2 (f) of Kera/a forest Act-Interpretation of 
The Kerala Forest Act, 1961 regulates preservation of forests and forest 
produce. Section 2(t) (i) defines forest p,J'.oduce which includes wood oil. 
The respondents in Crl. Appeals Nos. 420-422 of 1993 were found 
manufacturing/in possession of sandalwood oil. Proceedings under s. 52 (1) of 
the Act were initiated against them. They fded applications under s. 482, Cr. 
P.C. before the High Court challenging the j~risdic~on-of the trial court on 
the premise that sandalwood oil was not wood oil as defined under s. 2(t) (i) 
of the Act. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The High Co~~t allowed the case of the respondents and quashed the 
complaint*. Subsequently in another case involving the same controversy, a 
Dn<ision Bench of the High Court held' that sandalwood oil was a forest 
produce within the meaning of s. 2(t) (i) of the Act. **The State and the 
accused challenged the res~ective judgments in the appeals by special leave. 
G 
It was contended on behalf of the accused that sandalwood oil is not a 
forest produce inasmuch as there is a distintion between wood oil and 
sandalwood oil--wood oil is a natural produce of forest directly derived as an 
exudation from living trees in the forest whereas sandalwood oil is a bye-
product from sandalwood by industrial process utilising the heartwood and 
497 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
roots of sandalwood trees removed from the forest as a raw material. 
B 
The State contended that extraction of sandalwood oil even by mechani-
cal process would nonetheless be a wood oil; and that since the word 'timber' 
defined under s. 2 (k) of the Act includes 'sandalwood' being a forest produce, 
the oil extracted therefrom would also be within the meaning of the word 
'wood oil'. 
On the question: whether sandalwood oil is a forest produce within the 
meaning of s. 2(0 (i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. 
C 
Allowing the appeals of the.State and dismissing the other appeal, this 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Sandalwood oil is wood oil within the meaning ofs.2(0 (i) of 
the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. Therefore, it is a forest produce. (507-G) 
*Mohammed Ali v. Forest Range Officer: (1992) 2 KLT 502, overruled. 
**Khushboo Enterprises v. Forest Range Officer. (1993) 1 KL T 91, 
approved. 
Kangundilndustrial Works. Kuppam v. The Govt. ofA.P. (1987)2A.P.L.J. 
458, disapJ>roved. 
. 1.2 Sandalwood is forest produce. Even its roots are also included as 
forest produce. They are also 'timber' within the meaning of s. 2(k) of the Act. 
(504-D) 
1.3 Forest produce as defined in s.2 (0 of the Act, whether found in or 
brought from a forest or not is a forest produce which include, that is to say, 
the enumerated items in clauses (i) and (ii). ''Wood oil" is one of the 
enumerated items as are roots of sandalwood and rosewood. (502-E) 
2.1 The word "wood oil" used in the Act will require purposive interpre-
tation drawing the context in which the words are Used and its meaning will 
have to be discovered having regard to the intention and object which 
legislature seeks to subserve. The purposive interpretation would aid conser-
H 
vation of sandal wood, a valuable forest wealth, prevent illicit felling and 
transportation of them and makes the manufacturers of sandalwood oil 
-
.
' --
-
FOREST OFFICER v. MOHAMMED ALI 
499 
acco~ntable to the possession of sandalwood trees or chips or roots etc. (506-
A 
C-D) 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v./ndian Oil Corporation, AIR 
1991 SC 686; State of Bombay & Ors. v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha & Ors, 
(1960) 2 SCR 866 and Stale of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan, (1975] 2 
sec, relied on. 
2.2 The Legislature does not intend to restrict the word 'wood oil' nor 
B 
are there any compelling circumstances in the Act to give restricted meaning 
thatcllllyoil derived from Dipterocarpus trees would be wood oil. The literal 
interpretation if given acceptance would lead to manifest frustration 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.