M/S. STANDARD ESSENTIAL OIL INDUSTRIES & ANR. versus FOREST RANGE OFFICER KASARGOD & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 19-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
M/S. STANDARD ESSENTIAL OIL INDUSTRIES & ANR.
v.
FOREST RANGE OFFICER KASARGOD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1747 of 2008)
APRIL 19, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Kerela Forest Act, 1961: ss. 61A and 69 – Confiscation by
forest officers in certain cases – On facts, order of confiscation of
125 kgs of sandalwood oil by the Divisional Forest Officer – Said
order dismissed by the Single Judge, however, the Division Bench
of the High Court upheld the order of confiscation u/s. 61A –
Correctness of – Held: Order by the Divisional Forest Officer
sufficient to show that the order of confiscation was passed u/s 69
and not u/s. 61A – Perusal of the order of Single Judge of the High
Court shows that Single Judge rejected the idea of confiscation of
sandalwood oil u/s. 61A and held that though the order of
confiscation cannot be passed u/s. 61A but by virtue of s. 69, unless
a fact to the contrary is proved, it can be presumed that the seized
property belongs to the Government and it enables the Government
to possess the same – Thus, the Division Bench misdirected itself in
framing the issue and upholding confiscation u/s. 61A and, hence,
the order is bad in law – Furthermore, s.69 operates only as a tool
to help the government in proving its title to the property but the
said Section cannot be read as to give any power of confiscation of
the property – Power of confiscation of sandalwood oil get vested
in the authorities through s. 61A only after the Kerala Forest
(Amendment) Act, 2010 when certain specific provisions relating to
Sandalwood were inserted through Chapter VI A and Section 47H
– Instant case being related to the situation prior to the time of
amendment in 2010 was made, the amended provisions do not apply
– Thus, the order of confiscation of sandalwood oil set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The order passed by the Divisional forest Officer
is in itself sufficient to show that the order of confiscation is passed
under Section 69 of the Kerela Forest Act, 1961 and not under
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 532
532
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
Section 61A. Further, a perusal of the order of Single Judge of
the High Court shows that Single Judge rejected the very idea of
confiscation of sandalwood oil under Section 61A of the Act and
held that though the order of confiscation cannot be passed under
Section 61A of the Act but by virtue of Section 69 of the Act,
unless a fact to the contrary is proved, it can be presumed that
the seized property belongs to the Government and it enables
the Government to possess the same. Further, the Division Bench
misdirected itself in framing the issue and upholding confiscation
under Section 61A and, hence, on that account, the order is bad
in law. [Para 13] [538-B-C]
1.2 Section 61A of the Act was inserted to prevent the illicit
removal of timber, charcoal, firewood and ivory belonging to the
government from the forests. The said provision confers power
of confiscation on Forest Officers authorised by the Government
in certain cases. The essence of the Section lies in the fact that
when forest offence is satisfactorily believed to have been
committed in respect of timber, charcoal, firewood and ivory which
is the property of the Government then the authorized officer
may confiscate the property irrespective of the pendency of any
criminal proceedings in this regard. [Para 15] [539-C-D]
1.3 A perusal of the definition of forest produce, as given
by Section 2(f) of the Act, shows that other than timber, charcoal,
firewood it includes wood oil, gum, resin, natural varnish bark,
roots of sandalwood etc. However, the use of the specific words
“timber, charcoal, firewood and ivory” under Section 61A instead
of “any forest produce or ivory” makes it clear that the intention
of the legislature in providing armory under Section 61A is only
with regard to certain category specified therein and not for every
forest produce as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Undoubtedly, sandalwood oil is a forest produce but Section 61A
of the Act is limited only to the categories specified therein and
does not give power of confiscation of sandalwood oil. [Para 16]
[539-F-G]
1.4 Section 69 of the Act is only a rule of evidence which
raises a mandatory presumption that a forest produce, unless
proved otherwise, is a property of the government in case where
any proceedings are going on under the Act or anything is done
M/S. STANDARD ESSENT

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