JOHN Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the machinery in a sawmill is liable to seizure under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 ['Forest Act' for brevity], a precursor to confiscation, on the ground that it had been used to saw timber illegally felled or removed from a reserved forest?

(2.) A learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P(C)No.22429 of 2017, doubted the correctness of the decision of another learned Single Judge in Moosa v. Authorised Officer [2014 (2) KHC 731]. The Learned Single Judge who referred the matter, was of the opinion that an offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act would attract seizure of tools used for sawing timber in the reserved forest and not machinery in a sawmill. Confiscation, being a penal provision has to be construed strictly and when there are two views possible, the Court should lean in favour of the person on whom the penalty is to be imposed, was the observation. The legislature has failed to explain unambiguously, the 'tools used in committing offence', the implementing officer cannot seize the tools used for sawing such timber, that too in far off places and a contrary interpretation would put to peril the prospects of a sawmill owner who will have to conduct a roving enquiry into the antecedents of every customer who approaches him. The learned Single Judge opined that such a seizure and confiscation was not intended by the legislature, from Section 52.

(3.) This Court in Kallara Sukumaran v. Union of India [1987 (1) KLT 226] held that when a learned Single Judge refers a question, then the entire case would have to be referred. The Writ Appeal is from an order which declined similar contentions by a sawmill owner. We propose to answer the reference and then consider the cases on merits.