STANDARD ESSENTIAL OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the order of confiscation of sandalwood oil passed under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act (for short 'the Act') illegal and without jurisdiction The above question has arisen in the following facts and circumstances.

(2.) On April 16, 1993 Kasaragod Police recovered 125 litres of sandalwood oil from the residence of appellant No. 1, the Managing Partner of M/s. Standard Essential Oil Industries which is engaged in extraction, purchase and sale of sandalwood oil. The police seized the contraband invoking the power under Section 52 of the Act since the appellants could not produce satisfactory and reliable documents in relation to the contraband. The police was of the view that appropriate action as contemplated under Section 61A of the Act had to be initiated by the Forest Officials concerned. Subsequently, the sandalwood oil was handed over to the Forest authorities. After complying with the statutory formalities and after hearing the appellants, the Authorised Officer, Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur passed an order confiscating the sandalwood oil. The above order, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P11, was challenged by the appellants in the Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was primarily contended by the appellants that the sandalwood oil was legally procured by the appellants. Since the appellants had not committed any forest offence, the sandalwood oil was not liable to be confiscated under Section 61-A of the Act. In other words, since no enumerated article like timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory was involved in the instant case, there was no question of any forest offence having been committed. Therefore, the Authorised Officer was not justified in invoking the power of confiscation under Sub-section (2) of Section 61-A of the Act. The other contention was that the documents which were produced by the appellants had clearly established that the entire quantity of sandalwood oil was manufactured/purchased by the appellants.

(3.) The learned Single Judge held that the order of confiscation was legal and valid in as much as the sandalwood oil being a forest produce as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, the presumption available under Section 69 of the Act could be invoked. Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence regarding the possession of sandalwood oil by the appellants, the department was justified in ordering confiscation. Accordingly, the Original Petition was dismissed. Hence this Writ Appeal.