REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1834     OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3003 of 2006)

Mohd. Ashique …Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

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  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  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 conditions.  

2. Factual background as stated by the appellant is as follows:

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 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 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

2

of statement given by owner of Saw Mill is illegal. He, therefore, moved

application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, for release of the truck.

He  also  received  show-cause  notice  dated  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 question and information

given by one R.A. Chavan was also suppressed in said notice. There were

three  passes  having  number  667308  dated  08.05.1998,  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 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  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 of  guard Shri

Chavan and others to point out that their statements also did not support the

statements  in  show-cause  notice.  He  contended  that  show-cause  notice

issued was without  any verification  from the concerned owners  & forest

3

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

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 which was not there in the earlier

transit  passes,  could  not  have  been  included  in  the  third  transit  pass

No.001805 dated 7.1.1998 issued in lieu thereof. It was therefore apparent

that alterations were made in the transit passes. Accordingly, the High Court

dismissed the writ  petition.  The High Court permitted 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.  

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 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.  

4

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 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 believed 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  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 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 under above-mentioned provision. Section 69 makes a provision for

presumption  that  forest  produce  is  the  property  of  Government  until  the

contrary is proved. Section 61-B (2) is important for purposes. It reads:

5

"S.61-B (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  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 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 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

following observations in paras 19 and 20:

“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

6

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 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.”

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  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.

 ……………………………………..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) …………………………………….J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, November 18, 2008  

7