IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 718 of 2005(F) CMA.89/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT --------------------------- V.J.JOHN, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, VADAKKEKKARA HOUSE, CHEENIKUZHY P.O., UDUMBANOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGLAM. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA RANGE. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR FOREST SRI.M.P.PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A..NO.1995/2005 IN C.R.P.NO.718/2005 DISMISSED 4/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 718 OF 2005 F -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th January, 2008 O R D E R In proceedings under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act, the Divisonal Forest Officer, the Authorised Officer under the Act, passed an order dated 25.6.2004, confiscating the vehicle, bearing Registration No.KL 10A/1544, belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that order in C.M.A.No.89 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc) II, Thodupuzha. Learned District Judge confirmed the order of confiscation and dismissed the appeal. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the appellate court. 2. On 22.1.2003, on getting information regarding illicit transportation of timber from the forest of Thodupuzha Range, the Flying Squad Range Officer, Thodupuzha and party, while conducting search intercepted the lorry in question. The lorry was being driven by the son of the petitioner. It was found that eight logs of timber (timber of `karinthakara' tree) were loaded in the lorry. The driver of the vehicle stated that one Michle and one Raveendran directed him to load the timber and that they stated that the timber was cut from the boundary of Peringassery Settlement, which is not a forest area. The seized timber C.R.P.NO.718 OF 2005 F :: 2 :: were produced before the Divisional Forest Officer. The Range Officer (Flying Squad), Thodupuzha conducted a detailed enquiry. One Kuriakose, who is a retired teacher, filed an application before the Divisional Forest Officer on 24.1.2004 stating that he had sold three 'vaka' trees to Michle for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and that while transporting the timber, the vehicle in question was seized. He stated that the timber was not removed from the forest area, but from his patta land. Kuriakose was given an opportunity to see the seized timber. On inspecting the timber, he was convinced that the timber does not belong to the trees cut from his property. He made a statement before the Range Officer that he was under the wrong impression that the vehicle was seized while transporting the timber which was cut and removed from his property and that he was convinced later that it was not so. 3. The petitioner herein, the owner of the vehicle, gave statement before the Range Officer, Thodupuzha on 24.1.2004, in which it was admitted that the vehicle was seized and that at the time of seizure, “karinthakara” timber was being loaded in the vehicle. He also stated that the vehicle was being driven by his son. 4. The petitioner filed O.P.No.4613 of 2003 before the High Court and as per the order passed by this Court, the vehicle was released to C.R.P.NO.718 OF 2005 F :: 3 :: him on furnishing bank guarantee. He furnished bank guarantee for Rs.90,000/- and the vehicle was released to him. 5. The case of the Forest Officers is that the timber was cut from the property in the possession of one Rajan, which is part of Peringassery Settlement within the Forest Range, Thodupuzha. The property was inspected on 25.1.2003 and a mahazar dated 25.1.2003 was prepared. On inspection of the said property, it was revealed that one dead and dried tree of 'karinthakara' was cut and removed from that property. Rajan gave statement that he sold one dead and dried 'karinthakara' tree to Rajendran and Michle for a sum of Rs.2,000/- and that they have cut and removed the tree into eight logs. He also stated that the timber seized on 22.1.2003 is the timber removed from his compound. 6. On these admitted and proved facts, the Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the timber in question was cut and removed from the property belonging to the Government. There is no dispute that the seized timber was being transported in the lorry belonging to the petitioner. 7. The Authorised Officer, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements given by the petitioner, Kuriakose C.R.P.NO.718 OF 2005 F :: 4 :: and Rajan, came to the conclusion that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle failed to ascertain the source of collection of 'karinthakara' logs, which was transported in his vehilce. It was held that the petitioner failed to prove that the vehicle was used in carrying timber after taking all reasonable and necessary precautions to avoid user of the vehicle for carrying forest produce, as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 61(B) of the Kerala Forest Act. 8. The learned District Judge considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions urged by the revision petitioner and concurred with the view taken by the Authorised Officer. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not proved that the timber seized from the vehicle in question is 'karinthakara' logs. According to the counsel, the timber is that of 'Eyal Vaka' trees. I am not inclined to accept this contention put forward by the counsel. Kuriakose, who filed a claim petition to release the timber, had stated before the Officer that 'karinthakara' trees were cut from his property and the timber was transported in the vehicle in question. Later, on inspection of the timber, he stated that the seized timber was not cut from his property. The property in the possession of Rajan, which is part of Peringassery Settlement within the Thodupuzha Forest Range, was inspected and it C.R.P.NO.718 OF 2005 F :: 5 :: was found that 'karinthakara' tree was cut. Rajan identified the timber and stated that the timber was removed from his property. He also had no case that the timber is not 'karinthakara', but 'Eyal Vaka'. The theory of cutting of “Eyal Vaka' arose only when investigation was conducted by the Flying Squad and the property of Kuriakose was inspected. They found that three 'Eyal Vaka' trees were cut from that property. Whether “Eyal Vaka' trees or 'Karinthakara' trees were cut from the property of Kuriakose is not relevant at all. Kuriakose has stated after inspecting the timber logs that they were not cut from his property. There is no case for anybody at any point of time that the seized timber was of 'Eyal Vaka'. On analysing the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements given by the persons concerned, the Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the timber logs were of 'karinthakara'. There is no ground to interfere with the said finding of fact. Even before the appellate court, the petitioner has not raised the contention which is now attempted to be put forward by him in respect of the nature of the timber logs. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has taken all necessary precautions against the user of the vehicle for transporting forest produce. This contention is also unsustainable. His son, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, stated that logs of 'karinthakara' were seized. He also stated that the C.R.P.NO.718 OF 2005 F :: 6 :: logs were transported at the instance of Michle and Raveendran. Kuriakose stated that it was from his property that the tree was cut and later stated that the seized timber does not belong to the trees cut from his property. On inspection of the property in the possession of Rajan, it is established that the seized timber belonged to the trees cut from that property. There is no case for the petitioner that the property in the possession of Rajan does not form part of Peringassery Settlement within the Thodupuzha Forest Range. The case of the petitioner is that it is not proved that the timber was removed from the Settlement area, as is revealed from ground (i) in the Revision. It is proved in the case that 'karinthakara' tree was cut from the property in the possession of Rajan. There is no case for the petitioner that the property in the possession of Rajan does not form part of Peringassery Settlement. There is also no case for the petitioner that Peringassery Settlement area does not come within the Thodupuzha Forest Range. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention of the petitioner which was not raised anywhere at any point of time. 11. All the necessary ingredients to found an order under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act have been established in the case. The petitioner has failed to prove that he has taken all necessary precautions against misuse of the vehicle in transporting forest produce. The burden C.R.P.NO.718 OF 2005 F :: 7 :: of proof which lies on the petitioner under Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act is not discharged by him. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered orders passed by the authorities below. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 718 OF 2005 F O R D E R 4th January, 2008 -------------------------------------------