State Of Kerala vs Joseph Paul
2023 Latest Caselaw 11000 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
     THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA,
                                   1945
                          CRP NO. 320 OF 2019
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMA 377/2000 OF ADDITIONAL
                    DISTRICT COURT,       THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

             STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MUNNAR.
             BY ADV SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. G.P. (FOREST)

RESPONDENT/S:

             JOSEPH PAUL,
             S/O.M.M.PAUL, MANIKUTTIYIL HOUSE, NERIAMANGALAM
             VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK - 686 693.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
             SRI.K.S.ROCKEY
             SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE
             SRI.GEORGE RENOY

OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI. T.P. SAJAN -SPL.GP -FOREST


        THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    26.10.2023,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRP No.320 of 2019

                                          -2-



                                     ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023

The State of Kerala has filed this civil

revision petition aggrieved by the order in CMA

No.377 of 2000 on the files of the I st Additional

District Court, Thodupuzha. The appeal was filed

by the respondent challenging the order passed

under Section 61 A of the Kerala Forest Act,

confiscating his Mini Lorry bearing Registration

No.KL-7B/1375. The essential facts are as under;

OR No.9 of 1996 was registered at the

Kanthalloor Forest Station on the allegation that

certain persons had indulged in illegal

transportation of sandal wood pieces. The alleged

incident took place on 07.12.1996 and the OR was

registered on 10.12.1996. Thereafter, on

11.12.1996, the respondent's vehicle was seized

from his residence alleging that it had been used

for transporting sandalwood.

CRP No.320 of 2019

2. The respondent approached this Court by

filing O.P.No.5558 of 1997 and by judgment dated

26.03.1997, the authorised officer was directed

to release the vehicle, on the respondent

executing a bond. Accordingly, the bond was

executed and the vehicle released. Later, the

authorised officer issued notice under Section

61B of the Kerala Forest Act, proposing to

confiscate the vehicle. After affording

opportunity to the respondent to let in evidence

and put forth his arguments, the order of

confiscation under Section 61A was passed.

3. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent

preferred CMA No.377 of 2000 which was initially

dismissed by the appellate court. That order was

challenged by the respondent before this Court in

W.P.(C) No.6436 of 2006. By judgment dated

15.10.2007, the writ petition was allowed and the

matter remanded to the appellate court, on

finding that the impugned judgment was rendered CRP No.320 of 2019

without hearing the respondent's Counsel.

Thereafter, the appeal was heard in detail and

the impugned order passed on 07.04.2009.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the revision petitioner assailed

the order by contending that no reason, let alone

any acceptable reason, is stated for interfering

with the order of confiscation. It is contended

that the competent authority had confiscated the

vehicle after elaborate consideration of the

evidence and the appellate court gave a complete

go-by to the findings in the confiscation order.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent

supported the order by pointing out that

elaborate reasoning is not required for setting

aside the confiscation order, the fact that the

mahazar was not attested by any independent

witnesses being not in dispute. It is also

submitted that till date, the OR has not attained

finality and all that done by the authority was CRP No.320 of 2019

to confiscate the vehicle.

Although I find some substance in the

contention regarding lack of reasons in the

impugned order, the finding therein that the

mahazar of the vehicle was not attested by any

independent witness, despite the seizure being

effected from the respondent's residence, remains

undisputed. The fact that the vehicle was

released to the respondent way back in the year

1997 on executing a bond is also a valid

consideration. As such, absence of elaborate

reasoning in the impugned order is not

sufficient to interfere with the order at this

distant point of time.

In the result, the civil revision petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/