STATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus P.V. MATHEW (DEAD) BY L.RS.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 02-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 673 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
v. 
P.V. MATHEW (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3337 of 2012) 
APRIL 2, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
KERALA FOREST ACT, 1961: 
A 
B 
s.52 read with s.2(f) (as amended by Amendment Act 23 c 
of 1974), s,61 A (as inserted by Amendment Act 28 of 1975 
and s. 69 - Confiscation of vehicle used in committ:ng a forest 
offence - Vehicle confiscated on the allegation that the same 
was used by the offenders to go to the forest to kill an elephant 
and to transport the tusks therein - Held: It is significant to note 
D 
that the definition of ''forest produce" in s. 2(f) does not include 
any part of living or dead wild animals which is being taken 
care of by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Consequent 
to the amendment of expression "forest produce" in s. 2(f) of 
the Act, the claim of the State that even in the absence of 
"ivory" in the definition "forest produce", in view of s. 61A of E 
the Act, the authorities are entitled to confiscate the vehicle 
cannot be sustained - The definition of "forest produce" in the 
Act uls 2(f) doesn't take ivory in its purview - The presumption 
under Sec.69 of the Act applies only to the "Forest Produce" 
so even if s.61A of the Act takes in its fold 'ivory' as one of F 
the items liable to be confiscated the presumption uls 69 of 
the Act will not be available to the Government as it is not a 
''forest produce". 
In a case registered on the allegation of illicit killing 
G 
of a wild elephant in 1990, one of the accused stated on 
1.4.1991 that the vehicle of the original respondent was 
used by the accused to go to the forest and again to 
transport of the tusks.· After the investigation by order 
673 
H 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A dated20.12.1996 the vehicle was confiscated. The appeal 
of the original respondent was allowed by the District 
Judge. The High Court declined to interfere. 
In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was 
8 contended for the respondent that after the amendment 
of definition of "forest produce" in s.2(f) of the Kerala 
Forest Act, 1961, the forest authorities wee not 
empowered to confiscate the vehicle unless it was 
established that a forest offence was committed in terms 
of the Act. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Clause (iii) of the unamended s. 2(f) has 
been deleted by Act 23 of 1974 and the present definition 
D of "f~rest produce" does not include "ivory". Section 52 
of the Act which deals with seizure of property liable to 
confiscation,_~cfearly contemplates that the power of 
confiscation is confined to only those vehicles used in 
committing any forest offence in respect of any timber or 
E other forest produce. Though a reading of s. 61A of the 
Act as inserted by Amendment Act, 28 of 1975 shows that 
ivory is also included in respect of any forest offence 
under the Act and under sub-s. (2) ther~of, the vehicle 
used for committing such offence is also liable to 
confiscation by the Authorised Officer. However, 
F consequent to the amendment of expression "forest 
produce" in s. 2(f) of the Act, the claim of the State that 
even in the absence of "ivory" in the definition "forest 
produce", in view of s. 61A of the Act, the authorities are 
entitled to confiscate the vehicle cannot be sustained. It 
G is significant to note that the definition of "forest 
produce" in s. 2(f) does not include any part of living or 
dead wild animals which is being taken care of by the Wild. 
Life (Protection) Act, 1972. [para 7] [682-E-H; 683-A] 
H 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. v. P.V. MATHEW (DEAD) 675 
BY L.RS. 
1.2 Inasmuch as "ivory" being not a "forest produce" 
A 
as defined in s. 2(f) after the Amendment Act 23 of 1974, 
no forest offence as defined in s. 2(e) of the Act can be 
said to have been done in respect of the "ivory" as 
alleged .in the instant case and, therefore, the action 
taken u/s 61A of the Act cannot be supported. [para 6] 
B 
[681-F-G] 
1.3 In the instant case, neither any property was 
seized from the car nor had any seizure taken effect as 
provided under sub-s. (1) of s. 52. Inasmuch as seizure c 
u/s 52 of the Act has not taken place and no forest 
offence in respect of a "forest produce" is shown to have 
been committed or established in the case, there is 
absolutely no justification for the seizure and the order 
of confiscation of the aforesaid car as the same is beyond 
D 
the jurisdiction of the authorized officer. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.