IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 282 of 2004() --------------------- CMA.1/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR NORTH DIVISION, NILAMBUR. (NOW REPRESENTED BY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, EASTERN CIRCLE, PALAKKAD) 2. STATE-REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MANJERI. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P. PRAKASH RESPONDENT: APPELLANT ---------------------- P.SHANAVAS S/O. HAMZA, PANDIYAD, PATHAPP PATHAPPIRIYAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NOS.800 OF 2004 AND 2239 OF 2004 IN C.R.P. NO.282 OF 2004. DISMISSED 12.2.2008 Sd/(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 282 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the State of Kerala and the Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur challenging the judgment of the District Court, Manjeri dated 28.1.2004 in C.M.A.. No.1 of 2004. 2. It is the case of the revision petitioners that on 8.3.2001 while the forest officials were on patrol duty, they found a mini lorry bearing Registration No.KL-11-B/7135 belonging to the respondent carrying eight unfinished cots of teak timber. Since, neither the respondent nor the driver of the vehicle was able to produce the transit pass or bill of the furniture, the furniture as well as the vehicle were seized as per order No.T- 1681/2001 dated 24.6.2003 of the Divisional Forest Officer on preparing a mahazar. The respondent herein filed C.M.A. No.1 of 2004 challenging the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer. According to the appellant in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, there is no evidence to C.R.P. NO.282/2004 2 show that the timber used for making the cots is forest produce and that for mere violation of the Transit rules, confiscation of the vehicle is not warranted. The court below found that seizure of the cots was not within the forest or while being brought from the forest and, therefore, held that there was no scope for application of Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1962. The court below also relied on the evidence of the Range Officer, Edavanna who had submitted a report to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur stating that he had no case that the teak trees were felled from the limits of the Range Office, Edavanna. The court below also referred to the reports of the adjoining Range Officers who had also no case that the trees in question were removed from within their ranges. The Range Officer, Edavanna was also not able to trace the source of the timber. Hence, on the basis of the materials on record, the court below found that there is no evidence to show that the timber involved in the case was forest produce and, therefore, the presumption under Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act is not applicable. 3. In the light of the findings on facts entered by the court below that the timber used for making the cots in question is not forest produce, the confiscation proceedings initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer cannot stand. C.R.P. NO.282/2004 3 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.282/2004 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO.282/2004 O R D E R 12th TH FEBRUARY, 2008