MOOSA Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 4th accused in O.R. No. 2/2007 of Elanad Forest Station, This O.P. is filed challenging the order passed in C.M.A. No. 76/2009 on the files of the District Court, Thrissur. The above C.M.A. was filed challenging the Order No. TC-3-7275/2007 dtd. 24.1.2009 passed by the Authorised Officer and the Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur, under S. 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act'). The legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Authorised Officer as well as the judgment passed by the learned District Judge in appeal are under challenge in this O.P. Briefly put, the facts of the case is as follows: The petitioner is the 4th accused in O.R. No. 2/2007 of Elanad Forest Station. On 9.11.2007 the forest officials detected illicit felling of one dead teak tree and two green teak trees in the Kumblakode area which is a part of the Reserved Forest. During investigation, A1, Mohanan was interrogated and he confessed that the trees were cut and timber were removed for the purpose of construction of his house. The pieces of teak timber were recovered from his house. The value of the sawn timber was assessed as Rs. 10,000/-. He further confessed that the timber were transported by a mini lorry to the sawmill owned by the petitioner herein, the 4th accused. The said mini lorry was seized. Thereafter, the petitioner was apprehended and he gave a statement before the Deputy Ranger of Forests confessing his guilt. The machinery of the sawmill was taken into custody and the mill was sealed. He was arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakkancherry. Then he filed a petition for releasing the machinery and that petition was dismissed by the court below on 28.11.2007. Thereafter, he appeared before the Authorised Officer on 12.8.2008 and gave a statement denying the allegation leveled against him and the alleged confession. The Authorised Officer conducted an enquiry under S. 61A of the Act and passed the order confiscating the machinery seized from the sawmill owned by the petitioner. Though the petitioner had challenged the above said order in Appeal, the District Court also confirmed the order passed by the Authorised Officer.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments assailing the findings of the Authorised Officer. The learned counsel contended that no offence under the Act has been committed by the petitioner and the machinery is not liable to be seized for the said offence allegedly committed under S. 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. The Authorised Officer ought to have found that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner's sawmill was used for sawing any timber knowing to be illicit. The entire findings are based on the confession statements given by Al to A4. But the Authorised Officer has not considered the petitioner's contention that he had not given any statement admitting the case of the forest officials.

(3.) Per contra, Shri. M.P. Madhavankutty, the learned Special Government Pleader advanced arguments to justify the confiscation proceedings and findings thereunder. According to him, the burden is heavy on the petitioner under S. 61B of the Act and he has to discharge the statutory requirements under sub-section (2) of S. 61B of the Act. But no evidence had been adduced to prove that he has taken reasonable and necessary precaution against using of his sawmill for the commission of forest offence. The alleged act committed by the petitioner, i.e., sawing of the forest produce in his sawmill, would definitely constitute the offence under S. 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.