IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4333  OF 2008 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 10382 OF 2007 )

State of Kerala & Ors.       .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Ancy Phillip & Anr.        .... Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

1) Leave granted.

2) The respondents were prosecuted under the provisions of

the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

alleging that they had cut and removed certain trees from the

forest.  The respondents/accused denied the prosecution case

and,  during  the  course  of  the  trial,  they  insisted  that  the

timber,  which  was  seized  by  the  forest  officials  during  the

course of investigation, is to be produced in the Court.  They

approached the High Court by filing O.P. No. 25171 of 1999

praying  to  issue  a  writ  of  mandamus  directing  respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 therein to issue pass and permit enabling the

1

first  petitioner  therein  to  transport  rosewood  timbers  and

rosewood  billets  as  per  Exts.  P2  and  P2  (a)  from Vayaloor

Pettickal  in  Palakkad  District  to  Ernakulam.   In  the  same

petition,  they  also  prayed  for  a  direction  to  the  Divisional

Forest Officer, Agali for disposal of their representation Ext. P6

expeditiously.  By order dated 02.06.2000, the learned Single

Judge  directed  the  officer,  who  registered  the  case,  for

production of timber in question before the appropriate Court

within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

With the said direction, the learned Judge disposed of the writ

petition.  

3) Aggrieved by the said direction, the State of Kerala and

two officers  of  the  Forest  Department  filed  Writ  Appeal  No.

2246 of 2000 before the Division Bench.  The Division Bench,

by  impugned  order  dated  31.01.2006,  placing  reliance  on

Section 54 of the Act and finding no infirmity in the direction

issued  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  for  production  of  the

timber before the appropriate Court dismissed the writ appeal.

The said order  is  under  challenge  before  this Court  in this

appeal.   

2

4) Heard both sides.  

5) In  the  instant  case,  the  forest  officials  had  allegedly

seized 41 rosewood timber and 54 rosewood billets.  The High

Court  has  relied  on  Section  54  of  the  Act  which  refers

“disposal of the property according to law”, would necessarily

mean that the disposal of the property confiscated under the

provisions  of  Section  61A  has  to  be  under  the  orders  of

Magistrate.   It  is  true  that  in  addition  to  the  criminal

prosecution,  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  proceed  against

timber under Section 61A of the Act, but timber can also be

disposed  of  after  obtaining  necessary  orders  from  the

Magistrate concerned under Section 54 of the Act.  However,

the Single Judge and the Division Bench had mis-interpreted

the above provision, namely, Section 54 and held that disposal

can only be done after  physical  production of timber before

the Magistrate and after obtaining necessary orders.  This is a

perverse  finding.   The  same  was  not  warranted  by  the

provisions  of  law,  as  the  prosecution  has  to  produce  the

relevant  records  showing  such seizure  and the  officer,  who

has seized those articles, has to satisfy that an offence has

3

been committed by the accused.  As rightly pointed out, the

High  Court  did  not  consider  the  effect  of  the  non-obstante

clause  in  Section  61A  as  well  as  the  legal  presumption

available  under  Section  69  of  the  Act.   Likewise,  the

interpretation to Section 54 is not acceptable.  We accept the

stand taken by the State and set aside the order of the High

Court and the Special Magistrate is permitted to proceed with

the trial of the accused in accordance with law.  

6) The appeal is allowed accordingly.  No costs.  

     …….…….……………………CJI.

                                                  (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

   ..…………………………………J.                                           (P. SATHASIVAM)

         .…………………………………J.                                                    (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI; 11TH JULY, 2008.      

4