State of Kerala &
Ors. Vs. Ancy Phillip & ANR  INSC 1104 (11 July 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4333 OF 2008 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.
10382 OF 2007 ) State of Kerala & Ors. .... Appellant (s) Versus Ancy
Phillip & Anr. .... Respondent(s)
respondents were prosecuted under the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') alleging that they had cut and removed
certain trees from the forest. The respondents/accused denied the prosecution
case and, during the course of the trial, they insisted that the timber, which
was seized by the forest officials during the course of investigation, is to be
produced in the Court. They approached the High Court by filing O.P. No. 25171
of 1999 praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3
therein to issue pass and permit enabling the 1 first petitioner therein to
transport rosewood timbers and rosewood billets as per Exts. P2 and P2 (a) from
Vayaloor Pettickal in Palakkad District to Ernakulam. In the same petition,
they also prayed for a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Agali for
disposal of their representation Ext. P6 expeditiously. By order dated
02.06.2000, the learned Single Judge directed the officer, who registered the
case, for production of timber in question before the appropriate Court within
one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. With the said
direction, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition.
by the said direction, the State of Kerala and two officers of the Forest
Department filed Writ Appeal No. 2246 of 2000 before the Division Bench. The
Division Bench, by impugned order dated 31.01.2006, placing reliance on Section
54 of the Act and finding no infirmity in the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge for production of the timber before the appropriate Court
dismissed the writ appeal.
The said order is
under challenge before this Court in this appeal.
the instant case, the forest officials had allegedly seized 41 rosewood timber
and 54 rosewood billets. The High Court has relied on Section 54 of the Act
which refers "disposal of the property according to law", would
necessarily mean that the disposal of the property confiscated under the
provisions of Section 61A has to be under the orders of Magistrate. It is true
that in addition to the criminal prosecution, the appellants are entitled to
proceed against timber under Section 61A of the Act, but timber can also be
disposed of after obtaining necessary orders from the Magistrate concerned
under Section 54 of the Act. However, the Single Judge and the Division Bench
had mis-interpreted the above provision, namely, Section 54 and held that
disposal can only be done after physical production of timber before the
Magistrate and after obtaining necessary orders. This is a perverse finding.
The same was not warranted by the provisions of law, as the prosecution has to
produce the relevant records showing such seizure and the officer, who has
seized those articles, has to satisfy that an offence has 3been committed by
the accused. As rightly pointed out, the High Court did not consider the effect
of the non-obstante clause in Section 61A as well as the legal presumption
available under Section 69 of the Act. Likewise, the interpretation to Section
54 is not acceptable. We accept the stand taken by the State and set aside the
order of the High Court and the Special Magistrate is permitted to proceed with
the trial of the accused in accordance with law.
appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.