IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 CRP.No. 369 of 2005 CMA.908/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT --------------------------- C.K.BENNYMON, S/O.KURIAKOSE, CHERUSSERIL HOUSE, VELLIKULAM, THEEKOY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY RANGER, FOREST STATION, MANCHIPLAVU, ADIMALY. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST STATION, MACHIPLAVU, ADIMALY. BY ADV. SMT.SUSHEELA R BHAT SPL. GP FOREST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NOS.1118/06 & 1023/2005 IN C.R.P.NO.369/2005 DISMISSED 26/11/2007 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 369 OF 2005 F -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2007 O R D E R The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment in C.M.A.No.908 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha, which arose out of the order dated 27.3.2002, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, who was the Authorised Officer under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act. The Authorised Officer confiscated the jeep, bearing Registration No.KL 5G 5803, belonging to and driven by the petitioner, invoking Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act. The order passed by the Authorised Officer was confirmed by the District Court in C.M.A.No.908 of 2002. 2. On 24.4.2001 when the Deputy Range Officer and the staff under him of Adimaly Forest Range were inspecting the forest area, they found five persons within the forest area. On questioning, they stated that they were brought by a contractor for work in the forest. They were taken to the place as shown by them, where the Forest Officials found the petitioner having parked his jeep. One person who was sitting inside the jeep ran away. On questioning, the petitioner stated that he is the owner and driver of the vehicle, that he belongs to Vagamon and the vehicle was hired by one Balan. The Forest Officials found pieces of rosewood trees and the instruments for cutting and removing trees. A forest offence was registered under Section 52(1) of the Kerala Forest Act and the vehicle C.R.P. NO.369 OF 2005 :: 2 :: was seized. The vehicle was produced before the Authorised Officer, who initiated proceedings under Section 61A. Notice was issued to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 61B and he was heard. The Authorised Officer held that the vehicle was involved in the forest offence and that the petitioner knowingly and wilfully used the vehicle for transportation of forest produce. It was also held by the Authorised Officer that the petitioner had not taken any reasonable and necessary precaution against using of the vehicle for committing a forest offence. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the admission made by the petitioner that he was found with his vehicle in the forest area by the Forest Officials and the vehicle was seized from there, held that the belated case put forward by the petitioner that the rosewood timber was planted in the jeep for foisting a case against him, is false. Accordingly, the vehicle was confiscated under Section 61A. 3. On appeal, the Appellate Court considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record. The District Court came to the conclusion that the Authorised Officer was justified in confiscating the vehicle under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act and dismissed the appeal. 4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was found in the C.R.P. NO.369 OF 2005 :: 3 :: forest area on the relevant date. It is also not in dispute that the Forest Officials seized the vehicle and registered a case for having committed a forest offence. A mahazar was prepared on the date of occurrence. Statement of the petitioner was recorded, in which, he admitted that the vehicle was found within the forest area as alleged. The case put forward by the petitioner that rosewood timber was planted by the Forest Officials in order to foist a case against the petitioner was rightly rejected by the court below in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is nothing to indicate that the Forest Officials had any axe to grind with the petitioner and, therefore, they foisted a false case. The details of the incident and the evidence on record would unmistakably indicate that the petitioner who belongs to a place called Vagamon, came to the forest area with the sole intention of committing forest offence and to make gain for himself. His initial case that the vehicle was hired by a contractor and that he was not aware of the commission of any forest offence is against the case put forward at a later point of time that the Forest Officials foisted a case against him by putting some rosewood timber in his jeep and created documents in such a way to make it appear that the vehicle was seized while transporting timber from the forest area. Both the authorities have arrived at the conclusion on appreciation of the facts and evidence in the case. The revisional court would not be justified in upsetting the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below on the basis of the facts C.R.P. NO.369 OF 2005 :: 4 :: and on the basis of appreciation of evidence. Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act provides that when in any proceedings taken under this Act, or in consequence of anything done under this Act, a question arises as to whether any forest produce is the property of the Central or State Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the Central or State Government, as the case may be, until the contrary is proved. The presumption is not rebutted in the case on hand. The petitioner has also failed to prove that he has taken reasonable precaution as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 61B of the Kerala Forest Act. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand and another v. Govind Singh ((2005) 10 SCC 437 and a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sukumara Panicker (1987 (2) KLT 341), a comparison of the value of contraband goods and value of the vehicle is not a relevant factor and the vehicle can be seized irrespective of the value of the timber in respect of which the offence was committed. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/