DIVNL FOREST OFFICER Vs. N C BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode, ordered under S.61A of the Kerala Forest Act, confiscation of a jeep for illegal transportation of 336 Kgs of sandalwood. Though a contention was urged that the sandalwood was not a forest produce, that was negatived by the Court below. Yet the penalty of confiscation was set aside by the appellate Court. Two reasons were given in support of that decision : (1) Except in the present instance, the jeep had not been found engaged in the transportation of any contraband article, and (2) The Jeep was in the custody of the Forest Department for about four years after its seizure.

(2.) The order of the appellate Court is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) The order of the Court below is not sustainable having regard to the statutory schemes and the established facts. Preservation of the forests in the State is a felt necessity. The Directive Principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution require the State to make endeavours for such preservation of forests. Under Art.51A it is a Fundamental Duty of (very citizen to safeguard the forest wealth. An assault on the forest wealth of the country has therefore necessarily to be viewed with all seriousness. The provisions of the Forest Act - some of them drastic no doubt - have been conceived of for achieving the above laudatory object. Having regard to the area in which the officials have to work, and the fact that those who loot the forest are invariably well organised groups, stringent provisions have been made for the prevention of forest offences. Special provisions have been made for the detection of the offences. In proportion to the oppressive extent of organised exploitation against the forest, deterrent punishment is provided when the offence is established. This is as it should be. Those involved in the crime and found guilty on the basis of materials and evidence, do not deserve any sympathetic consideration, having regard to the gravity of the crime. Imposition of a nominal fine, would only encourage those who speculate in the smuggling of forest produce. Courts have necessarily to be aware of these larger considerations when dealing with the forest offences. The approach the Court should adopt towards those found guilty of such abhorrent social crimes had been discussed in Tharu v. State, 1985 Ker LT 310, with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court, Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramachandra Dange, AIR 1974 SC 228 and Prem Ballab v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1977 SC 56 of the Punjab High Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri LJ 1218 : (AIR 1981 NOC 21) (FB) and of this Court in Mathai John v. State of Kerala, 1978 Ker LT 154 and Ammini v. State of Kerala, 1981 Ker LT SN 28, Case No. 50 (The Supreme Court declined special leave sought for against the above judgment vide S.L.P. Nos. 947 and 963 of 1985).