IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 939 of 2007(E) -------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMA 13/92 OF DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD) REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------- N.A.MOHAMMED SALIH, S/O. LATE N.A.ABDULLA HAJI, AGED 27 YEARS AS LEGAL HEIR, RESIDING AT RAHAMATH MANZIL NAYANMARMOOLA, VIDYANAGAR PO, MUTTATHADI VILLAE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISION, THALASSERRY. * (2.) THE DISTRICT JUDGE KASARAGOD.(DELETED) 2. STATE, CHIEF SECRETARY OF KERALA. * NAME OF R2( DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARAGOD) IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 13.12.07 ON I.A.3042/07 AND IN HIS PLACE “STATE OF KERALA REPRESENED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IS SUBSTITUTED AS R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 13.12.07 IN I.A.3043/07. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORESTS) M.P. PRAKASH. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 939 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the District Judge, Kasaragod in CMA 13/92. It is in relation to a confiscation of detection of sandal wood and jungle wood being transported in a vehicle KLS 2666 which belong to the appellant in the CMA. The brief facts would reveal that on 11.10.90 when the Circle Inspector of Police was on patrol duty at about 1 a.m. he signaled the driver of the car to stop the same. The car did not stop and the Circle Inspector of Police chased the car and on search found 108 Kgs. of sandal wood and 39 Kgs. of jungle wood in the car with gunny bags which is used to cover the logs. Action was initiated and confiscation was conducted. It is against that confiscation order the CMA was filed. 2. The learned District Judge had considered each and every objection that is raised by the appellant in the case. So far as the denial of opportunity, the Court found that the notice was served on him but he did not appear but CRP NO. 939 of 2007 -:2:- only sent a reply by post and thereby he had chosen himself to deny an opportunity of being personally heard in the matter. 3. Now, the larger question is regarding the origin from where the sandalwood has come. Under the Kerala Forest Act a forest produce includes sandalwood. Section 69 of the Act raises a presumption that the forest produce belongs to the Government. Therefore in the light of these facts there is already a presumption and it is the duty of the person challenging the same to rebut the presumption by convincing evidence. Now, the totality of the materials available and the situation will pin point that the appellant has not discharged the same. 4. Firstly, it has to be stated if the driver was transporting authorized sandalwood under the Rules there was no difficulty for the driver to stop the car and permit the C.I. Of Police to check the same. But it was just the other way and the car was not stopped. Secondly, if it is a legal or authorized transport and as it is a well established fact that CRP NO. 939 of 2007 -:3:- the sandalwood is always considered to be the property of the Government one should not have ventured to transport a legally valid sandalwood at 1 a.m. in the night. These are all basic suspicious circumstances. Later on it is submitted that the appellants are running a sandalwood oil extraction factory and they used to purchase sandalwood from local inhabitants and it was the said sandalwood that was being transported. Some of the documents are produced to show that he was having a sandalwood oil extraction unit. Just because one is having a sandalwood extraction oil unit one cannot come to the conclusion that whatever he does is legally permissible one. Thought he did not produce any document before the officer who ordered confiscation he produced some documents before the learned District Judge and in paragraph 9 of the order the learned District Judge has extracted those documents considered the same and found that they are not sufficient to prove the case set up by the appellant in the case. The Court also observed that the vendors have not been examined and the purchase bills did not give details of CRP NO. 939 of 2007 -:4:- the vendors and it is not known how such vendors came into possession of sandalwood logs to enable them to sell to the Manjeshwar unit. Now, in the bills produced only the name of the vendor is shown and therefore even after taking into consideration the documents produced the appellate court hold that it was not sufficient to rebut the presumption which is laid down under Section 69 of the Forest Act. So taking into consideration all the relevant materials the Court held that the confiscation order passed by the authority is proper and it does not require any interference. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the learned District Judge confirming the said order and therefore the C.R.P. lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-