SURESH LOHIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Bamboo mat is a forest-produce as is this expression known to the Indian Forest Act requires our determination in this appeal. This question would decide whether the order of confiscation of bamboo mat belonging to the appellant was in accordance with law. The Bombay High Court, having been approached in revision by the State against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing release of the bamboo mat, has reversed the order being of the view that the product confiscated was "forest-produce". The owner of the bamboo mat has approached this Court by filing this appeal.

(2.) "Forest-produce" has been defined in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as below :

(3.) The High Courts decision is principally based on a conjoint reading of definition of "timber" and "tree". It has stated that as definition of "tree" includes bamboo, and as definition of "timber" includes tree, even a fashioned bamboo would be a tree. It was then stated that "forest-produce" having been defined as any produce of tree in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (4, bamboo mat is forest-produce. In taking this view the High Court differed from what had been held by Gujarat High Court in Fatesang Gimba Vasava vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 Gujarat 9.