IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2007 / 28TH ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 15275 of 2006(R) --------------------------------- CMA.203/2003 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONERs: ---------------- 1. GRACY JOY, W/O.K.P.JOY, KULANGARA HOUSE, CHITTUR, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. K.P.JOY, S/O.POULOSE, KULANGARA HOUSE, CHITTUR, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT: ------------------ THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER (FOREST) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15275/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25.7.03 , BY THE DFO, MANNARKKAD. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD, IN CMA 203/03, DT. 24.9.05. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 10.2.03 . EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 17.5.01 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. ANNEXURE R(a):- COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DT. 30.4.01 & FORM-1 REPORT IN OR 5/01 DT. 2.5.01. ANNEXURE – R(b):- COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT DT. 4.11.01 OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, AGALI. ANNEXURE-R(c):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-4501.01 DT. 23.8.03 OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE R(d):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN OR/5/01 DT. 18.5.01. ANNEXURE R(e):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SRI.BABU DT. 18.5.01. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 15275 of 2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July , 2007 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the owner of a jeep bearing Registration No. KL-9F-1571 which was ordered to be confiscated by the respondent- Divisional Forest Officer under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act on the reason that the same was used for transporting forest produce - timber. The order of confiscation, though appealed against, was confirmed by the District Judge. In this writ petition under Article 227 the petitioners, who are wife and husband, challenge the orders of the respondent and that the District Judge. 2. The allegation of the Forest Department was that the jeep was found to be illegally transporting timber. The forest staff chased the jeep and took the jeep and timber to custody and prepared a Mahazar. On enquiry, it was found that the timber transported is a portion of logs stolen from the properties involved in another forest crime. The case of the forest officials was that the logs were transported in the vehicle belonging to the 1st petitioner by the 2nd petitioner, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, for one Babu, who WPC No.15275/2006 2 was the co-appellant before the District Judge along with the petitioners. Ext.P1 is copy of the confiscation order passed by the respondent. Ext.P2 is copy of the judgment of the District Judge in CMA No.203/2003 confirming Ext.P1. The case of the petitioners was that knew nothing about the commission of forest offences and that the first petitioner's vehicle being a goods carriage was hired by Sri.Babu for transporting timber from the properties of his sister. The report of the village officer was also produced by them to prove that the timber involved in the case is timber cut and removed from the premises of the sister of Sri.Babu. The report of the Deputy Range Officer was called for and Ext.P3 is a copy of that report dated 10.2.2003. Ext.P4 is a copy of the report of the Village Officer. It is without appreciating these materials, that the respondent and the District Judge passed and confirmed the order of confiscation under Section 61A. Impugning Exts.P1 and P2 on various grounds, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P1 and P2 and for a direction to the respondent to release the jeep to the first petitioner. 3. A statement was filed by the Forest Range Officer, Agali on behalf of the respondent. It is stated therein that on 30.4.2001, Mannarkkad Forest Station staff and protection force during the time of WPC No.15275/2006 3 Night patrolling in Mannarkkad – Anakkatty road, seized a jeep bearing registration number KKL-9F/1571 with rose wood logs without valid documents for transporting the timber. Case was booked as O.R. 5/2001 of Mannarkkad Forest Station under section 52 (1) of the Act and seized the vehicle and the rose wood timber loaded in the vehicle and prepared a mahazar. Annexure R(a) produced along with the statement is a copy of the Mahazar and Form-1 Report. Seized jeep and the rose wood timber were produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, Mannarkkad & Authorised Officer so as to proceed under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act. The Forest Range Officer, Agali was entrusted to conduct a detailed investigation and he submitted investigation report on 4.11.2001. Annexure – R(b) is a copy of that investigation report. It is revealed from Annexure R(b) that the timber loaded in the vehicle was stolen Government property included in OR 1/95 of Sholayur Forest Station. Based on the investigation report from the Range Officer, Agali dated 4.11.2001, Section 61(B) notices were issued to the concerned and after completing the formalities under Section 61 (A) of the Kerala Forest Act vehicle and forest produces were confiscated to the Government vide Ext.P1 order. The above confiscation order was approved by Conservator of Forests, Olavakkode Circle under Section 61(C) of the WPC No.15275/2006 4 Kerala Forest Act vide Annexure R(c). Along with a statement, a copy of the statement given by the husband of the first petitioner before the Range Officer in the enquiry has been produced as annexure R(d). Ext.R(e) is a copy of the statement given by Sri.Babu for whom timber was being transported. The statement concludes by contending that since the vehicle was involved in a forest offence of illegal transport of Government's property and the petitioners are actively involved in committing such an offence, Exts.P1 and P2 are liable to be confirmed. 4. I have heard the submissions of Sri. Santheep Ankarath, the learned counsel for the petitioners and those of Sri. Ranjith Thampan, the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest cases. Both the counsel would addressed me very strenuously . My attention was drawn to the various exhibits placed on record and the grounds raised in the writ petition and the contentions raised in the statement. The Judgment of the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Mathew (1995 (2) KLT 772) was in fact relied on by both sides. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar and having scanned Ext.P2 judgment of the learned District Judge confirming Ext.P1 in the light of the materials placed on record in this case and the ratio emerging from the judgment of the Division Bench WPC No.15275/2006 5 in State of Kerala v. Mathew (1995 (2) KLT 772), I am of the view that it cannot be said that Ext.P2 judgment of the District Judge is vitiated to the extent of warranting interference within the contours of this court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The findings entered by the learned District Judge in Ext.P2 cannot be said to be not based on evidence. Those findings in my opinion are reasonable and at any rate not vitiated to the extent of invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction which is visitorial in nature. Challenge against Ext.P2, which confirms Ext.P1, fails. The writ petition will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk