IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2010 of 2010() ------------------------------ CMP.1/2010 of CHIEF JUDITIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.PREMARAJAN, SAVINAYA TIMBER AND FURNITURE, CHALA ROAD, NAYATTUPARA, PATTANUR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K., SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL, SMT.N.MAHALAKSHMI, SRI.K.DILIP, SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.2010 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 12th Day of July, 2010 ORDER The petitioner, in a proceedings filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C, is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2010 in CMP No.1/2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery by which his prayer, for release of Teak timber produced before the court as per O.R.No.47/2009 FRO, Taliparamba, is declined. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the revision petitioner merely on the basis of the presumption under section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and his other contentions and claim were not considered. 3. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and gone through the order impugned. Even according to the petitioner, the teak timber woods were recovered from the possession of one Moosa. The petitioner, by showing the CRL.R.P.2010/10 -:2:- name of certain persons, contended that he had purchased the seized timber logs from those persons and in order to substantiate his claim, he has produced certain bills, and according to the petitioner, the timber logs so purchased were entrusted with the said Moosa. But the learned Magistrate after considering the fact that the Forest Range Officer, Taliparamba seized 39 pieces of teak logs from the paramba of one Moosa and he was arrested by the Chakkarakal Police, the timber logs were handed over to the Forest Range Officer, Taliparamba. It is also found by the learned Magistrate that the said Moosa had never come forward claiming that the timber logs were belonged to him and stating how he got possession of those timber logs. There is no material to connect the said Moosa with the petitioner. It is also the finding of the learned Magistrate that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner handed over that timber logs to the said Moosa. Thus, the learned Magistrate concluded that there is no prima facie evidence to prove that the timber logs belonged to the petitioner. In the absence of any positive evidence to show CRL.R.P.2010/10 -:3:- that the seized timber logs belong to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate by invoking section 69 of the Forest Act held that the only presumption that can be drawn is that the seized timber logs belong to the government. In the absence of any acceptable proof in support of the claim of the petitioner with respect to teak logs and when he failed to establish that he had entrusted that teak logs with the said Moosa from whom the same were seized, the petitioner's plea for release of such teak logs in favour of him is not sustainable. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the above finding of the learned Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the confiscation authority may be directed to consider his claim. It is also discernible from the order that the seized timber logs were produced before the court and thereafter handed over to the Forest Range Officer Taliparamba for investigation. It is also discernible from the order that though notice was issued to the petitioner, he had not appeared before the Forest Range Officer and did not take any step. But the learned counsel for the CRL.R.P.2010/10 -:4:- petitioner submitted that his right to make a claim before the confiscation authority may be safe guarded. I am sure that in case the seized timber logs are subjected to confiscation proceedings, certainly, the petitioner can raise his claim and whatever be his contention, the same will be considered by the confiscation authority, and I am sure, that the confiscation authority, before taking a decision in this matter, will hear and consider the claim of the necessary parties and claimants. Subject to the above observation, this Crl.R.P is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P.2010/10 -:5:-