DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. BIJU S/O THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is before this Court in this revision challenging the judgment of the Additional District Judge-IV, Thodupuzha in CMA No.15/2014.

(2.) The facts in brief is that the respondent, who is the owner cum driver of a vehicle bearing reg.No.KL12A-2585, a pick up jeep, allegedly involved in a forest crime OR No.21/2010 of Mullaringad Range. The allegation was that his vehicle was involved in transportation of forest firewood. The Divisional Forest Officer, after issuing notice under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 ('Act', for short), proceeded to confiscate the vehicle under the provisions of Section 61A of the Act. The impugned order dated 21.3.2014 was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Court by the respondent in the C.M.A, wherein the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of confiscation on the ground that the value of the timber or the contraband, which was transported by means of the vehicle was negligible as it comes to only Rs. 500/-, which in comparison to the value of the vehicle, was very meager and hence the order of confiscation of the vehicle should not have been passed. He relied on the decision of this Court in Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (1984) KerLT 1021.

(3.) The second ground on which the order of the DFO was set aside was that the confession statement allegedly made by the accused was not corroborated and that no independent witness regarding the said confession statement were examined. The learned District Judge relied on the decision of this Court in Kunjiraman v. Special Range Officer, (1959) KerLT 667 in support of his finding.