Supreme Court of India
MOHD. ASHIQUEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1310
- Decided
- 18 November 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the confiscation under Section 61A stands as the provisions are intended as a deterrent and must be given liberal construction.
Summary
The appellant, Mohd. Ashique, owned a truck that was confiscated by Maharashtra forest officials under Section 61A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 for allegedly transporting illicitly felled timber. He challenged the confiscation, claiming he had no knowledge of any alterations in the transit passes and that the seizure was illegal. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, finding that the transit passes did not cover the timber in question and that alterations had been made. On appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized the purpose of the Forest Act as a deterrent to deforestation and held that the provisions for confiscation must be given a liberal construction. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, ordering the seized truck to be auctioned with the proceeds to be dealt with in pending proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 61A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is valid despite the appellant's claim of lack of knowledge or connivance.
- Whether the appellant can avoid confiscation by proving, under Section 61B(2), that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance.
- Whether the statutory provisions for confiscation are to be interpreted liberally as a deterrent against forest offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Forest Act, 1927s. 61, s. 61A, s. 61B, s. 61C, s. 61D, s. 61E, s. 61F, s. 61G, s. 69
Subjects
forest lawconfiscationillegal timber transporttransit pass alterationdeterrent provisionIndian Forest Actvehicle seizure
Judgment
[2008) 16 S.C.R. 136
~ ' ..
A MOHD. ASHIQUE ·
\/.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 18, 2008
B
' '
[DR. ARIJIT PAS,AYAT AND DR. MUKUNDA.KAM ""'\
.SHARMA, JJ.]
Indian Forest Act, 1927 - ss.61, 61A to 61G - Forest
c bffence - Transportation of illicitly felled wood - Confiscation
of offending vehicle - Challenge to - Held: Not tenable -
Provisions for confiscation have been made as a deterrent
object so that felling of trees and deforestation is not made.
D The truck of Appellant was confiscated by the
Maharashtra forest officials under s.61A of the Indian '
•
Forest Act, 1927 after it was allegedly found involved in
the forest offence of transporting illicitly felled wood.
Appellant challenged the order of confiscation but his
plea was dismissed by the Sessions Court as well as by
E
the High Court.
In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that
the Courts below did not appreciate the factual position
in the proper perspective and there was no evidence to ?
F prove that he was personally involved in the changes or
alterations in the transit passes as alleged.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. While considering the present
G controversy, the purpose behind enacting the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 cannot be ignored or allowed to be
defeated. Forest is a national wealth which is required td
be preserved. The State is enjoined with a duty to·
H 136
MOHD. ASHIQUE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 137
>~
pre!!,erve the forest so as to maintain ecological balance A
and, thus, with a view to achieve the said object, forest
must be given due protection. The provisions for
confiscation have been made as a deterrent object so
that felling of trees and deforestation is not made. [Para
6] [141-C, G, H; 142-A·C] B
•
~
1.2. There is no merit in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed. However, this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case which
is stated to be pending. The truck which has been taken
by the Respondent shall be sold in public auction and the
c
money shall be deposited by the concerned Forest
Officer in fixed deposit account. Whether the money is to
be confiscated or to be returned to the appellant shall be
decided in the proceedings. [Para 7] [142-0]
1' D
~ Stat.e of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana AIR (2004) SC
1851, relied on.
Case Law Reference :
AIR (2004) SC 1851 relied on Para 6 E
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1834 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.4.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur F
in Criminal Writ Petition No. 432 of 2002.
Manish Pitale and Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant.
-- Madhavi Diwan and Ravindra Keshavrao for the
Respondent. G
""'·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissing
the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The
appellant, the owner of motor vehicle i.e. a truck bearing
B registration No.MH-30-B-2897 challenged the order of
confiscation passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest
(Authorised Officer) under section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 (in short the 'Act'). The truck was found involved in forest
offence on 7.1.1999. It was found that illicitly felled Nimb Wood
c and Katsawar wood were being transported. The order of
confiscation under Section 61-A of the Act was challenged in
appeal under Section 61-D of the Act which was dismissed by
learned Sessions Judge, Akola. While admitting the writ
petition, the High Court stayed both the orders and directed
_release of the truck in favour of the appellant subject to certain
0
conditions.
2. Factual backgr9urid as stated by the appellant is as
follows:
E According to him truck belongs to him and he had
engaged one Mohd. Shabbir, resident of Medshi for
transportation of timber on 07.01.1999. That timber was
transported accordingly to Geeta Saw Mill belonging to
Gangaram Manaji Patel of Kolhapur as per transit pass and
F as per law. Appellant thereafter learnt that on or about
08.01.1999 the officers of the Forest Department seized said
timber including Katsawar from Geeta Saw Mill. Thereafter
without any reason said officers took away the truck of
appellant which was standing on Mankarna plot near his
G residence. When appellant could not find his truck, he reported
the matter to local police and thereafter he learnt that his truck
has been carried away by Forest Department. The contention
of appellant is that seizure of truck on the basis of statement
given by owner of Saw Mill is illegal. He, therefore, moved
application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, for release
H
MOHD. ASHIQUE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 139
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
' --'
of the truck. He also received show-cause notice dated A
4.10.2002 from Assistant Conservator of Forest about the
seizure of truck. Even as per said show- cause notice, there
was transit pass for the wood in questiooond information given
by one R.A. Chavan was also suppressed in said notice. There
were three passes having number 667308 dated 08.05.1998, B
). 736977 dated 29.10.1998 and 001805 dated 07.01.1999. All
these three passes need to be looked together and the entire
timber transported is covered by it. Perusal of first two passes
reveals that timber therein belongs to Sahebrao Ghuge of
Malegaon and Ramchandra A Chavan of Bodkha. Therefore c
the allegations made in show cause notice were incorrect and
false. He appeared before the authority issuing show cause
notice and requested to supply all documents but respondent
avoided to supply these documents and did not even permit
him to take inspection of records. Ultimately on. the basis of
, information and documents which he could gather, he filed his
D
.... reply pointing out his innocence. He also pointed out report
dated 17.03.1999 submitted by Range Forest Officer Shri
Bansod communicating that the report of illegal transportation
was doubtful. He also relied upon statement cif guard Shri
Chavan and others to point out that their statements also did E
not support the statements in show-cause notice. He contended
that show-cause notice issued was without any verification from
the concerned owners & forest rangers. In spite of this, on
17.06.2002, authority passed the order and confiscated the
truck. Hence he preferred Appeal No.42/2002 under Section F
61-D but the same came to be dismissed on 14.10.2002.
The High Court found that on examination of the transit
passes involved it was clear that the transit passes do not
pertain to any quantity of Katsawar. Thus the timber of Katsawar G
~
which was not there in the earlier transit passes, could not have
beipn included in the third transit pass No.001805 d~ted
7.1.1998 issued in lieu thereof. It was therefore apparent that
C!lterations were made in the transit passes. Accordingly, the
High Court dismissed the writ petition. The High Court permitted H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
..:..._ 4
A the respondent to either take the custody of the truck or to
confiscate it and in the alternative to proceed to recover the
amount of rupees two lakhs by invoking personal bond and the
bank guarantee. It appears that the custody of the vehicle has
been taken.
•
B
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
I
factual position has not been appreciated properly. It has not -\
been shown that the appellant had taken any personal interest
in the alleged changes or any alterations as alleged.
c 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment.
5. Relevant provisions in this respect are contained in
Section 61-B as amended by Maharashtra Amendment to the
D Act. Section 61-A to Section 61-G are added by this
amendment. Section 61-prescribes for confiscation by Forest '
Officer of forest produce where Forest offence is belie•Jed to ....
have been committed. Section 61-B prescribes for procedure
thereof while section 61-C prescribes for Revision by higher
department officers against the orders of confiscation. Section
E 61-D prescribes remedy of Appeal against the original order
passed under Section 61-A and also revisional order passed
under Section 61-C. Section 61-E provides that confiscation
under earlier provisions does not save the offender from any
other punishment which can be imposed upon him under Indian
F Forest Act or any other law. Section 61-F stipulates that after
the order of confiscation becomes final, the property confiscated
vests in government. Section 61-G bars jurisdiction of any other
officer Court or Tribunal authority with regard to custody,
' .
possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of property seized
G under above-mentioned provision. Section 69 makes a
provision for presumption that forest produce is the property of r..
Government until the contrary is proved. Section 61-B (2) is
important for purposes. It reads:-
"S.61-B (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub- -
H
-#
MOHD. ASHIQUE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 141
[DR. ARIJIT PASAVAT, J ]
section (1 ), no order confiscating any tool, boat, vehicle or· A
cattle shall be made under Section 61-A if the owner of
the tool, boat, Vehicle or cattle proves to the satisfaction
of the authorized officer that it was used in carrying the
timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other
notified forest produce without the knowledge or B
connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any and the
person in charge of the tool, boat, vehicle or cattle and that
each them had taken all reasonable and necessary
precaution against such use".
6. While considering present controversy, the purpose
c
behind erecting the Forest Act cannot be ignored or allowed
to be defeated. In State of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana
(AIR 2004 SC 1851) this Court has made the foflowing
observations in paras 19 and 20:
D
"19. The provisions of law referred to hereinbefore leave
no manner of doubt that upon seizure of forest produce,
timber or vehicles etc. the concerned authority has an
option to report the factum of such seizure both to the
concerned Magistrate as also the authorized officer, save E
and except in the cases which would fall within the purview ·
of the proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 52
of the Act, as amended by the State of West Bengal. The
· report in relation to such seizure is required to be made
either for (1) confiscation of the seized property; (2) F
prosecution of the offender; or (3) for both.
20. The legislature has inserted the aforementioned
provisions with a laudable object. Forest is a national
wealth which is required to be preserved. In most of the
cases, the State is the owner of the forests and forest G
-.'\ produce. Depletion of forests would lead to ecological
imbalance. It is now well-settled that the State is enjoined
with a duty to preserve the forest so as to maintain
ecological balance and, thus, with a view to achieve the
said object forest must be given due protection. Statutes H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R
A which provide for protection of forest to maintain ecological
balance should receive liberal construction at the hands of
the superior Courts. Interpretive exercise of such power
should be in consonance with the provisions of such
statutes not only having regard to the principle of purposive
B construction so as to give effect to the aim and object of
the legislature; keeping the principles contained in Articles .{
48-A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution of India in mind. The
provisions for confiscation have been made as a deterrent
object so that felling of trees and deforestation is not
c made."
7. Above being the position, there is no merit in this appeal
which is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that -
we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case
which is stated to be pending. However, the truck which has
D been taken by the respondent pursuant to the High Court's -
order shall be sold in public auction and the money shall be _,...
deposited by the concerned Forest Officer in fixed deposit
account. -Whether the money is to be confiscated or to be
returned to the appellant shall be decided in the proceedings.·
E
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "forest law"Sign in to search