IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5013 of 2010() ------------------------------------ ( OR NO.30/2007 OF FRO, MEPPADY, WAYANAD ) -------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.A.SHOUKATH, S/O.ABDHUL RAHMAN, AGED 52, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, MEPPADY POST, KOTTAPADI VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MEPPADY, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.5013 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioner challenges Annexure-A5, notice issued by the DFO, Waynad at Kalpetta in this proceeding. It concerned proceeding for confiscation of a rosewood timber which was seized by the forest officials from the side of the public road on 16.11.2007. Petitioner claimed that he had purchased timber from one Pathumma on 05.11.2007 as per an agreement executed on that day, the photocopy of which is Annexure-A1. Though petitioner made a request to the Range Officer to release the timber that application was rejected. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta also rejected the application for interim custody. That order was challenged in Crl.R.P.No.379 of 2010 in this Court and this Court by Annexure-A4, order dated 11.02.2010 allowed interim custody to the petitioner subject to conditions. It is thereafter that D.F.O has issued Annexure-A5, notice directing petitioner to show cause why the timber shall not be confiscated. Learned counsel submitted that the D.F.O who issued Annexure-A5, notice has no authority to issue such notice and that there is nothing on record to show that the timber in Crl.M.C.No.5013 of 2010 -: 2 :- question is Government property liable for confiscation under Sec.61A of the Forest Act. Various other contentions are also raised. Learned counsel also invited my attention to Annexure-A4, order where submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that no report was received regarding the source of timber is recorded. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is seen that petitioner has already given his written objection before the D.F.O concerned, a copy of which is Annexure-A6. There is no reason why this Court should at this stage quash Annexure-A5, notice since all the relevant contentions are already taken up before the D.F.O concerned. It is open to the petitioner to peruse the contentions before the D.F.O. In that situation I do not find reason to interfere with Annexure-A5, notice. However, since the condition imposed by this Court by Annexure-A5, notice state that petitioner shall not dispose of the timber, I direct the D.F.O to complete proceeding as early as possible. With the above direction this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge