Kerala High Court
The Divisional Forest Officer vs T.C.George on 6 February, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
CRP NO. 427 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMA 85/2014 OF IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. G.P. (FOREST)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 T.C.GEORGE
THENGUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2 JOSE JAMES
NADUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.M.V.RAJENDRAN NAIR
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL GP SANGEET.T.KOTTAKKAL
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRP No.427 of 2016
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 06th day of February, 2024
The Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam
has filed this revision petition, aggrieved by
the judgment in CMA No.85 of 2014 of the
Additional District Court-IV, Thoduppuzha. The
impugned judgment was rendered in an appeal filed
by the respondents under Section 61D of the
Kerala Forest Act, 1961, challenging the order
passed by the petitioner confiscating their lorry
bearing registration No.KL-6C 9538. The essential
facts are as under;
The Forest Officials under the Kaliyar Range
got information that an Anjili tree standing in
the property of one Antony @ Jovachan had been
felled and the logs removed unauthorisedly.
Based on the information, the property was
inspected on 21.02.2009 and it was found that the
tree had been cut. The officers also got
information that the tree had been transported to
two sawmills at Kodikulam in the lorry bearing
registration No.KL-6C 9538. Based on the
incident, OR No.7/2009 was registered at the
Kaliyar Range. Later, the lorry belonging to the
respondents was confiscated under Section 61A of
the Act.
2. While the proceedings under the Forest
Act was initiated on the premise that the Anjili
tree was cut from Government land, the specific
case of the respondents is that the tree was cut
from the 10 cents of land for which patta was
granted to Antony @ Jovachan as per LA Nos.48 of
1999 and 109 of 1999. In appeal, the court below
found that there was inordinate delay in
confiscating the vehicle and the petitioner had
failed to prove that the tree was cut from
Government land, so as to confiscate the vehicle
under Section 61A of the Forest Act. The
appellate court also found that the only evidence
against the respondents is the alleged confession
statements of the persons who had cut the trees
and are made accused in the crime. As the
alleged confession was made before the Forest
officials, the appellate court held the evidence
to be unreliable. It was also noted that inasmuch
as the owner of the property was issued with a
patta and the dispute as to whether the tree was
cut from patta land or forest land remains
unresolved, the respondents cannot be attributed
with the knowledge that the Anjili tree was cut
from forest land. Based on the said reasoning, it
was held that the presumption under Section 69 of
the Forest Act is not attracted.
3. I heard learned Special Government
Pleader and learned Counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader
contended that the respondents having failed to
rebut the presumption under Section 69 of the
Forest Act, by proving that, reasonable care and
precaution had been taken to prevent commission
of the offence using their vehicle, the court
below committed gross illegality in allowing the
appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents
submitted that the vehicle was hired by informing
the respondents that it is to be used for
transporting timber cut from patta land. To
convince the respondents, a copy of patta was
also shown to them. As such, there is no reason
for the respondents to suspect that the timber is
cut from forest land. In such circumstances,
the vehicle cannot be seized on the premise that
the respondents had failed to take reasonable
care and precaution to prevent commission of the
offence.
6. Even the petitioner do not have a case
that the respondents were directly involved in
the felling of the tree. The only role attributed
to the respondents is of having let out their
vehicle on hire for transporting timber. Here, it
is pertinent to note that the respondents were
made to believe that the timber was cut from
patta land. As a matter of fact, the alleged
owner of the property holds a patta for 10 cents
of land. Except contending that the timber is cut
from forest land, no effort is taken to prove the
fact. In such circumstances, the vehicle cannot
be seized alleging that the timber is cut from
forest land and the respondents had failed to
take reasonable care and precaution to prevent
transportation of timber cut from forest land,
using their vehicle.
7. Another factor which weighed with the
court below is the absence of evidence to connect
the respondents with the alleged crime. As
rightly held, the confession made by the accused
in the crime cannot be the basis for implicating
the respondents and seizing their vehicle.
8. It is also pertinent to note that, even
though the details of the lorry was known to the
officers way back in 2009 itself, the vehicle was
confiscated only in the year 2014. There is no
explanation for the inordinate delay and the fate
of the crime registered based on the incident is
not known to anyone.
In such circumstances, this Court is not
justified in interfering with the impugned
judgment by exercising the revisional power under
Section 115 C.P.C.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
