Ravi K S And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 2777 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ravi K S And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2026

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2026:BHC-AS:13198

                                                                                             -WP-2176-2025.DOC




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                WRIT PETITION NO. 2176 OF 2025


                         1. Ravi K.S.
                         Age-49, Occ-Business
                         Residing at 510, 14th Main Road,
                         4th Block Nandani Lay Out,
                         Bangalore,
                         Karnataka - 560096.


                         2. Rajkumar Harpal Godara,
                         Age-49, Occ-Business,
                         Residing at D-401, Tirupati Complex,
                         Plot No. 8, Sector No.. 36,
                         Kamothe, Panvel,
   ARUN                                                                                         ..Petitioners
   RAMCHANDRA
   SANKPAL
                         Raigad.
   Digitally signed by
   ARUN
   RAMCHANDRA
   SANKPAL
   Date: 2026.03.17
                                 Versus
   22:29:06 +0530



                         The State of Maharashtra
                         At the instance of Chief Conservator of Forest,
                         Thane                                                               ...Respondent

                         Mr. Sachin R Pawar, for the Petitioners.
                         Mr. A.R. Metkari, APP, for the Respondent-State.

                                                              CORAM:       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                         RESERVED ON : 8th JANUARY 2026
                                                 PRONOUNCED ON :           17th MARCH 2026


                         ARS                                        1/23



                          ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2026                         ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:36:55 :::
                                                                  -WP-2176-2025.DOC

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of

the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Petitioners assail

the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated

13th March 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

Panvel in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2023, whereby the Appeal

preferred by the Petitioners against an order passed by the Chief

Conservator of Forest, dated 27th December 2022, under Section 61-C of

the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ("Forest Act, 1927"), came to be dismissed

by affirming the said order which, in turn, has affirmed an order of

confiscation of the forest-produce and vehicle, passed by the Competent

Authority and Assistant Conservator of Forest, Panvel, under Section 61-

A of the Forest Act, 1927.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts leading to this

Petition can be stated as under:

3.1 The Petitioners were transporting 14204 Kgs of red sanders logs,

which were stored at M/s Jai Hanuman Wood Works, No. 50/2,

Vijinapura, Doorvaninagar, Bangalore to M/s Shreya Trading Private

Ltd, Phoolpada Road, Virar, Thane, Maharashtra, in a vehicle being

Registration No. MH-46-AF-6741. The Deputy Range Forest Officer,

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, had issued exchange permit for

transportation of the said forest-produce.

3.2 The said vehicle carrying the forest-produce was checked at Inter-

State Check Post (Forest Department), Kagal, Kolhapur. Thereupon, the

Maharashtra State Forest Department officials issued an exchange pass

bearing No. 014586 for transportation of the forest-produce in the said

vehicle to Virar. The transport pass was valid till 1st July 2016.

3.3 It is the claim of the Petitioners that when the vehicle reached

Kalamboli, it developed mechanical issues. While the vehicle was

stationed roadside for the purpose of repairs, the local police

intercepted the vehicle.

3.4 After the preliminary enquiry, the vehicle along with the forest-

produce was handed over to Forest Department on 3rd July 2016 as the

pass had by then expired.

3.5 During the enquiry by the Forest Department officials, it

transpired that the mark "JAI" affixed on the logs by the Deputy Range

Forest Officer, Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, was missing and instead

some other property marks such as FD CE-48, CE-41, CE-49 and CE-3

were found on the logs. Nine logs were found without any property

mark. Noting that the property mark mentioned on the pass and the

property mark visible on the logs did not match, and, resultantly, there

was violation of the provisions contained in Section 41 of the Forest Act,

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

1927, CR No. 1 of 2016 was lodged by the Forest Department, Panvel,

for the offences punishable under Section 41, 52(1), 52(2) of the Forest

Act, 1927. Thereafter, by an order dated 28th April 2021, the Assistant

Conservator of Forest, Panvel, confiscated the said vehicle under Section

61-A of the Forest Act, 1927 (Maharashtra Amendment).

3.6 Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred a Revision Application

under Section 61-C of the Forest Act, 1927, before the Chief

Conservator of Forest. By an order dated 27 th December 2022, the Chief

Conservator of Forest dismiss the Revision Application.

3.7 Being further aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred an Appeal

before the Sessions Judge under Section 61-D of the Forest Act, 1927.

3.8 By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Panvel, was persuaded to dismiss the Appeal observing that indisputably

the pass for transportation had expired on 1 st July 2016, when the

vehicle was found stationed at Kalamboli, the mark, "JAI" affixed by the

Deputy Range Forest Officer, Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, was not

found on the wooden logs and there was no attempt on the part of the

Appellants/Petitioners to renew the permit. Thereafter the Petitioners

were not entitled to the return of the confiscated forest-produce and

vehicle.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

3.9 Being further aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order,

the Petitioners have invoked the writ and inherent jurisdiction of this

Court.

4. I have heard Mr. Sachin R Pawar, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners, and Mr. A.R. Metkari, the learned APP, for the Respondent-

State, at some length. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the

parties, I have perused the material on record.

5. Mr. Pawar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that

the fact that the forest-produce was being transported under a pass

could hardly be contested. Not only the issue of transport permit by

Deputy Range Forest Officer, Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, is not in

dispute but the said officer has also confirmed the said fact by

addressing a communication dated 14 th October 2019 with the

particulars of the property mark affixed by him on the logs.

6. Mr. Pawar would further submit that, the fact that the Range

Forest Officer, Karveer, Maharashtra, had issued an exchange pass for

transportation of the forest-produce, on the basis of the pass issued by

the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, which

was to be valid till 1st July 2016, is also incontestable. Without

controverting the fact that the said vehicle carrying the forest-produce

was intercepted at Kalamboli on 1st July 2016, Mr. Pawar would urge

that as the vehicle had travelled through heavy rains, it had developed

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

snag and was, therefore, required to be stationed at Kalamboli for the

purpose of repairs. After initial enquiry by the local police, the vehicle

alongwith forest-produce was delivered to the State Forest Officials on

3rd July 2016.

7. Mr. Pawar strenuously submitted that, what impairs the

prosecution case is the inordinate delay in carrying out the panchnama

of the said vehicle and the contents thereof. The panchnama was

carried out on 2nd August 2016, well after a month of the purported

seizure. It is on the basis of the weight and conditions of the logs,

including the marks thereon, noted in the said panchnama, the

prosecution came be initiated.

8. Mr. Pawar assiduously submitted that, property marks FD CE-48,

CE-41, CE-49 and CE-3 put by the Deputy Range Forest Officer,

Yelahanka Range, Karnataka did find mention on the wooden logs.

Thus, on the basis of the fact that the other mark "JAI" did not find

mention on the wooden logs, the Assistant Range Forest Officer could

not have drawn an inference that offences were committed in relation

to the forest-produce and, especially, in the face of the permit.

9. Mr. Pawar placed a very strong reliance on the communication

dated 14th October 2019 addressed by the Deputy Range Forest Officer,

Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, which according to Mr. Pawar, demolishes

the prosecution case that the forest-produce was illegally transported.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

The Chief Conservator of Forest, as well as the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, did not properly appreciate the material on record and

have mechanically upheld the order of confiscation passed by the

Assistant Conservator of Forest, submitted Mr. Pawar.

10. In contrast to this, Mr. Metkari, the learned APP, submitted that,

incontrovertibly on 1st July 2016, the pass had expired, and yet, no

efforts were made by the Petitioners to renew the pass. This fact,

singularly establishes the transportation of the forest-produce in

contravention of the provisions of Section 41 of the Forest Act, 1927.

11. Mr. Metkari would further submit that, the discrepancy in the

mark affixed by the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Yelahanka Range,

Karnataka, cannot be brushed aside as a minor irregularity. The absence

of the property mark, according to Mr Metkari, leads to no other

inference than that of illegal transportation of the forest-produce.

12. Mr. Metkari would further submit that the Authorities under the

Forest Act, 1927 have drawn an inference that the forest-offence has

been committed in relation to the forest-produce based on objective

material in the form of conditions of the logs, absence of marks thereon

and the statements recorded during the course of the enquiry. As the

order passed by the Authorities under the Forest Act, 1927 and the

impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable, the said

orders are not amenable to inference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

13. Before adverting to consider the contentious submissions it may

be apposite to note the legislative regime which governs the use,

transportation and sale of the forest-produce.

14. The Indian Forest Act, 1927 was enacted to consolidate the law

relating to forest, the transit of forest-produce and the duty leviable on

timber and other forest- produce. Under Section 2(4) "forest-produce"

includes --

(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a

forest or not, that is to say, --

timber, charcoal caoutchouc, catechu,wood-oil, resin,

natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua sees,

kuth and myrabolams, and

... ... ...

15. Sub-Section (b) of Section 2 defines, "timber" to include trees

when they have fallen or have been felled, and all wood whether cut up

or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not; and under sub-

Section (7), " tree" includes palms, stumps, brush-wood and canes.

16. "Forest-offence" has been defined in Section 2(3) to mean an

offence punishable under the Forest Act, 1927 or under any rule made

thereunder.

17. In the context of the controversy at hand, the provisions

contained in Chapter VII of the Forest Act, 1927, under the caption, "Of

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

The Control Of Timber And Other Forest-Produce in Transit" deserve to

be noted. Chapter VII subsumes the provisions contained in Sections 41

to 44 of the Act.

18. Section 41 (1) vests the control of all timber and other forest-

produce in transit by land or water, in the State of Maharashtra. It also

empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate the transit of

all timber and other forest-produce. Under sub-Section (2) of Section

41, the rules may prescribe, the routes by which alone timber or other

forest-produce may be imported, exported or moved into, from or

within the State; prohibit the import or export or moving of such timber

or other produce without a pass from an officer duly authorized to issue

the same, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such

pass; and provide for the issue, production and return of such passes

and for the payment of fees therefor.

19. Under Section 42, the State Government is empowered to

prescribe penalties for the contravention of the rules, which may extend

to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees

(Maharashtra Amendment).

20. It would be contextually relevant to note that in exercise of the

powers, the State of Bombay has framed, Bombay Forest Rules, 1942

("Forest Rules, 1942"). Chapter VI of the Forest Rule, 1942, makes

provision for transit of forest produce. Rules 66 and 68 assume

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

importance in the determination of the controversy at hand. The

relevant part of Rule 66 and Rule 68 read as under:

"66. Regulation of transit of forest produce by means of passes.

No forest produce shall be moved into, or from, or within any district of the pre-Reorganisation State of Bombay excluding the transferred territories, except as hereinafter provided, without a pass from some officer or person duly authorised by or under these rules to issue such pass, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such pass or by any route or to any destination other than the route or destination specified in such pass:

.........

68 Passes what to contain.

(1) Every forest pass issued under rule 67 shall specify --

                (a)     the name of the person to whom such pass is
                granted;
                (b)     the quantity and description of forest-produce
                covered by it;
                (c)     in the case of forest-produce referred to in

clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 67, the name of the village and survey number in which it was produced;

                (d)     the places from and to which such forest-
                produce is to be conveyed;
                (e)     the route by which such forest-produce is to be
                conveyed;
                and
                (f)     the period of time for which the pass is to be in

force, which shall be calculated as follows:-- The day of issue plus in the case of transport by a motor vehicle, a day for transit to any point up to 80 miles from the village of origin plus an additional day for

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

every additional 80 miles or fraction thereof, and, in the case of any other form of transport, a day for transit to any point up to 15 miles from the village of origin plus an additional day for every additional 15 miles or fraction thereof:

... ... ..."

21. Under Rule 129, Penalties for breach of certain rules has been

provided. Rule 129 reads as under:

"129. Penalties for breach of certain rules.

Whoever contravenes the provisions of rules 66, 70, 71(3) to (7), 72, 75, 76, 80 to 82, 84, 85(2), 86, 88, 102, 104,105, 107 to 109, or 113 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

22. Chapter IX of the Forest Act, 1927 deals with penalties and

procedure. Section 52 of the Forest Act, 1927, empowers the Forest

Officer or Police Officer to seize forest-produce together with all tools,

boats, vehicle or cattle, if there is reason to believe that a forest-offence

has been committed in respect of any forest-produce. Section 55 of the

Forest Act, 1927, provides that all timber or forest-produce which is not

the property of Government and in respect of which a forest-offence has

been committed, and all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used for

committing any forest-offence, shall be liable to confiscation. Sub-

Section (2) of Section 55 provides for such confiscation may be in

addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

23. By Maharashtra Act 7 of 1985, after Section 61of the Forest Act,

1927, Section 61-A to 61-G came to be inserted, in its application to the

State of Maharashtra, prescribing a mechanism for confiscation

proceedings before the authorised officer.

24. Section 61-A prescribes for confiscation by Forest Officers of

forest-produce when forest-offence has been believed to have been

committed. Section 62-B prescribes procedure before confiscation under

Section 61-A.. The principle of opportunity of hearing to the affected

person is embedded in the said procedure. Section 61-C provides for a

remedy of Revision before the Conservator of Forest against an order

passed by the Authorised Officer under Section 61-A. Section 61-D,

under which the impugned order came to be passed, provides an Appeal

to the jurisdictional Sessions Judge against an order passed under

Section 61-A or Section 61-C. Section 61-E clarifies that confiscation of

the forest-produce or vehicle etc, under Sections 61-A, 61-C or 61-D

does not save the offender from any other punishment which may be

imposed upon him under the said Act or any other law. Section 61-F

stipulates that after the order of confiscation becomes final, the

property so confiscated vests in the State Government free from all

encumbrances. Section 61-G bars jurisdiction of other Courts and

Authorities with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal of

the property seized under the forgoing provisions.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

25. The provisions contained in Section 69 also deserve to be noted:

"69. Presumption that forest-produce belongs to Government.-- When in any proceedings taken under this Act, or in consequence of anything done under this Act, a question arises as to whether any forest-produce is the property of the Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the Government until the contrary is proved."

26. Section 69 enacts a presumption that the forest produce belongs

to the Government until the contrary is proved. It provides that when in

any proceedings taken under this Act, or in consequence of anything

done under this Act, a question arises as to whether any forest-produce

is the property of the Government, such produce shall be presumed to

be the property of the Government until the contrary is proved.

27. In the context of the controversy at hand in regard to the

confiscation of the vehicle, the provision contained in Section 61-B (2)

are of material significance. It reads as under:

"61-B Issue of show cause notice before confiscation under Section 61-A.--(1) No order confiscating tools, boats, vehicles or cattle shall be made under Section 61-A except after notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized and considering his objections, if any:

Provided that no order confiscating a motor vehicle shall be made except after giving notice in writing to the registered owner thereof, if in the opinion of the authorised officer it is practicable to do so, and considering his objections, if any.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-Section (1), no order confiscating any tool, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made under Section 61-A if the owner of the tool, boat, vehicle

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

or cattle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying the timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or any other notified forest-produce without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the tool, boat, vehicle or cattle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.

... ... ..."

28. If the provisions contained in the Forest Act, 1927, in its

application to the State of Maharashtra, and the rules framed by the

State Government thereunder are considered in juxtaposition with each

other, the anxiety of the legislature in providing a strict mechanism for

the use and transit of forest-produce with a view to conserve the forest

and arrest de-forestation so as to avoid disastrous consequences of

ecological imbalance and environmental de-gradation becomes

abundantly clear. The legislature has thus made provisions for the

transit of the forest-produce in strict conformity with the rules. The

power to confiscate the forest-produce and the vehicles was considered

a necessary deterrent to prevent the exploitation and de-gradation of

the forest. Thus, while interpreting the provisions of the Act, the

legislative object in inserting these stringent measures deserves to be

kept in view.

29. In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors Vs Sujit Kumar Rana, 1

the Supreme Court enunciated that the statutes which provide for

1 AIR 2004 SC 1851.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

protection of forest to maintain ecological balance should receive liberal

construction at the hands of the superior Courts. It was in terms

observed that the provision for confiscation have been made as a

deterrent object so that felling of trees and deorestation is not made.

The observations in paragraph 19 and 20 of the said judgment are

material and hence extracted below.

"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 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) 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 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 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

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

purposive 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 made."

30. Following the aforesaid pronouncement, in the case of Mohd

Ashique Vs State of Maharashtra,2 wherein the provisions dealing with

confiscation proceedings (Sections 61-A to 61-G), fell for consideration,

the Supreme Court reieterated that the purpose behind enacting these

provisions in the Forest Act, 1927, cannot be ignored or allowed to be

defeated.

31. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Uday Singh, 3 in the

context of the provisions of Forest Act, 1927, as amendmed by the MP

Act 25 of 1983, the Supreme Court made following pertinent

observations:

"27. The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Indian Forest Act 1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose. Protection of forests against depredation is a constitutionally mandated goal exemplified by Article 48A of the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A (g). By isolating the confiscation of forest produce and the instruments utilised for the commission of an offence from criminal trials, the legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent. The absence of effective deterrence was considered by the

2 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 251 (S.C.) 3 AIR 2019 SC 1597.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal regime. The state amendment has sought to overcome that deficiency by imposing stringent deterrents against activities which threaten the pristine existence of forests in Madhya Pradesh. As an effective tool for protecting and preserving environment, these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation.

For, it is only when the interpretation of law keeps pace with the object of the Legislature that the grave evils which pose a danger to our natural environment can be suppressed. The avarice of humankind through the ages has resulted in an alarming depletion of the natural environment. The consequence of climate change are bearing down on every day of our existence. Stationary interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to the daily assaults on the environment."

(emphasis supplied)

32. In the light of the aforesaid statutory regime and judicial

precedents, which have expounded the object of the legislative

provisions and the approach to be adopted by the Courts in applying

these provisions to the facts of the given case, reverting to the facts of

the case at hand, first and foremost, it is imperative to note that the fact

that on 3rd July 2016 when the vehicle laden with red sanders logs, was

intercepted at Kalamboli, it had no valid transit pass, is not much in

dispute. On the own showing of the Petitioners, the transit pass had

expired on 1st July 2016.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

33. Under Section 41 of the Act, the State Government is empowered

to make rules, inter alia, to prohibit the import or export or moving of

timber or other produce without a pass or otherwise in accordance with

the conditions of such pass. Under the Forest Rules, 1942, the State

Government has made the rules. In the light of the provisions contained

in Rule 68 of the Forest Rules, 1942, (extracted above), the forest pass

issued under Rule 67 shall specify the period of time for which the pass

is to be in force. Rule 66, in turn, proscibes the transit of forest-produce

without a valid pass.

34. As noted above in Section 2(3), forest-offence means an offence

punishable under the Forest Act, 1927 or under any rule made

thereunder. Section 42 of the Forest Act, 1927, inter alia provides that

the State Government may, by rules made under Section 41, prescribe

penalties for the contravention of those rules. Under Rule 129 of the

Forest Rules, 1942, the contravention of the provisions contained in

Rule 66 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend

to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or

with both.

35. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid provisions leads to an

inescapable inference that transit of forest-produce in contravention of

the conditions of pass would amount to transit in contravention of the

rules and, resultantly, punishable under the rules. Once, an act or

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

omission is made an offence under any rule made under the provisions

of the Forest Act, 1927, it amounts to a forest-offence within the

meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act.

36. In the case at hand the fact that when the vehicle laden with red

sanders logs was interecepted at Kalamboli by local police, the pass to

transport the forest-produce had expired is rather incontravertible. An

explanation was sought to be offered on behalf the Petitioners that the

Petitioners could not take steps to renew the pass/permit as 1 st July

2016 happened to be a holiday on account of Jamat Ul-Vida. The

Authorities below have found the said explanation unworthy of

credence and rightly so. 1st July 2016 was not a notified public holiday.

The explanation sought to be given by the Petitioners for non-renewal of

the pass appeared to be rather egregious. Nor any material could be

produced before the Authorities below to demonstrate that the vehicle

had developed a technical snag. In the absence of any cogent material,

the Authorities under the Forest Act, 1927, were justified in discarding

the said contention.

37. The situation which thus obtains is that a forest-offence in the

contemplation of the provisions contained in Section 42 read with

Section 41 and Rule 129 of the Forest Rules, 1942, can be said to have

been prima facie made out. Once this foundational fact is established,

the enquiry into the justifiability of the exercise of the power to

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

seize the forest-produce and confiscate the vehicle, becomes rather

objective.

38. The power to seize and confiscate the forest-produce is

conditioned by the satisfaction to be recorded by the Authorised Officer

that there was reason to believe that a forest-offence has been

committed in respect of the forest-produce. In the case at hand, in view

of the rather indisputable fact that when the vehicle was intercepted at

Kalamboli, there was no valid transit pass, it cannot be said that the

Authorised Officer had no reason to believe that forest-offence has been

committed in relation to the forest-produce. It is imperative to note,

under sub-Section (3) of Section 61-A when the authorised officer is

satisfied that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of forest-

produce, produced before him, he shall order the forest-produce so

seized to be taken charge of by a forest officer. In regard to the forest-

produce, in respect of which forest-offence has been committed, no

discretion is left with the authorised officer once he is satisfied that such

offence has been committed but to order its confiscation.

39. The thrust of the submission of Mr. Pawar premised on the delay

in drawing the panchnama, minor discrepancy in the mark on the red

sanders logs, especially, in the light of the communication addressed by

the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, centered

around the point as to whether the red sanders logs which were

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

cleared at Karveer Inter-State Check Post, were the same which were

found in the vehicle at Kalamboli. However, in the considered view of

this Court, that issue does not bear upon the primary question as to

whether the forest-offence was committed when the vehicle was found

laden with forest-produce without a valid permit. The transportation of

the forest-produce in breach of the conditions of the pass and beyond

vaildiy period of the said pass amounted to a forest-offence, eo instanti.

Therefore, no mileage can be drawn from the fact that the discrepancy

in the mark on the red sanders logs was minor and stood explained by

the communication addressed by the The Deputy Range Forest Officer,

Yelahanka Range, Karnataka.

40. Under Rule 68 of the Forest Rules 1942, the forest pass shall

specify the places from which and to which such forest-produce is to be

conveyed. The communication of The Deputy Range Forest Officer,

Yelahanka Range, Karnataka, dated 14 th October 2019 clarifies that he

had issued exchange permit for transportation of red sanders logs from

M/s Jai Hanuman Wood Works, Doorvaninagar, Bangalore, Karnataka

to M/s Shreya Trading Private Ltd, Phoolpada Road, Virar, Thane,

Maharashtra. The forest-produce was thus to reach the destination by

1st July 2016. The interception of the vehicle laden with red sanders

logs at Kalamboli, thus cannot be said to be immaterial or

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

inconsequential. The permit was to transport forest-produce to a

defined destination.

41. It is not enough that the forest-produce was found in the same

position in which it was transported from the source. Given the strict

measures envisaged by the legislature, no deviation can be tolerated in

regard to the destination of the forest-produce, even if it is transported

with a valid pass. The seizure of the vehicle laden with the forest-

produce at a place, well before of its destination, beyond the validity

period of the pass, cannot be brushed aside as a mere irregularity, as

such situation is impregnated with opportunities for the commission of

further forest-offences. Therefore, in the absence of a justifiable reason

for not reaching the destination within the validity period of the pass or

for not seeking renewal of the transit pass, especially in view of the fact

that a wholly preposterous explanation was offered that the transit pass

could not be renewed on 1st July 2016 as it happened to be a public

holiday, (which was ex-facie incorrect), the Petitioners cannot be

permitted to wriggle out of the consequences.

42. A useful reference in this context can be made to a Division

Bench judgment in the case of Shyamrao S/o Kewalram Kapgate and

Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors,4 wherein the Division Bench held

that once it was not in dispute that the Petitioners had been

transporting the forest-produce in the absence of any transit pass for

4 2003 (4) MhLJ 181.

-WP-2176-2025.DOC

such transportation of the forest-produce, the forest-offence is clearly

disclosed and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order

passed under Section 61-A and confirmed under Section 61-D of the

said Act on the ground of absence of transit pass while transportation of

such forest-produce.

43. For the forgoing reasons, no interference is warranted with the

impugned order.

44. The Petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

45. Hence, the following order:

       (i)      The Petition stands dismissed.

       (ii)     Rule discharged.

       No costs.



                                                 [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]