WOODMAN INDUSTRIES ARARIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in these three writ petitions being the same they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The question is whether 'veneer' is a forest produce within the meaning of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short, 'the Act'), so as to make the provisions of the Act applicable to it and confer jurisdiction upon the Forest officials to seize and confiscate the goods under the Act.

(2.) The representative facts may be noticed from the writ petition in Cr.W.J.C. No. 313/95. Petitioner No. 1 of the case is a registered partnership firm, while the other petitioners are said to be related to the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the firm or owner of the vehicle, its Khalasi and driver. On 19-4-95 the vehicle, a truck bearing registration No. BRF 6941 laden with veer, was intercepted at zero mile post at Araria by the officials of the Forest Department. They demanded the papers with respect to the goods which were not shown. On suspicion the truck along with veneer was seized and a prosecution report alleging commission of offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria. The seizure was also reported to the Divisional Forest Officer (Extension Division), Purnea. Application was filed before the CJM for release of the truck as well as the goods on 2-5-95. On the ground that the confiscation proceeding under Section 52 of the Act (Bihar Amendment) had been initiated, the CJM rejected the prayer on 8-5-95. On 18-5-95 the petitioners moved this Court in the present writ petition seeking release of the seized truck as well as the goods kept thereon and for quashing of the confiscation proceeding registered as Confiscation Case No. 1/95. By an interim order passed on 1-6-95 this Court directed the Divisional Forest Officer to release the truck on security. However, before the order could reach the authority, he passed the final order of confiscation of the vehicle and the goods on 5-6-95. Another interim order was passed by this Court on 10-7-95 to the effect that the vehicle as well as the seized veneer shall not be auction sold. On 23-8-95 the writ petition was admitted for hearing by a Division Bench.

(3.) Shri P. K. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that veneer has not been specified as 'forest produce' under Section 2(4) of the Act and, therefore, it cannot be called forest produce as such and subjected to seizure etc. under the Act. He pointed out that veneer may be a bye-product of timber but it is a different product altogether which comes into existence as a result of mechanical process in a factory. It loses its original identity and it assumes the character of a different goods altogether having a definite marketable identity distinct from its original identity as a forest produce. In support of the contention he relied on an unreported judgment of Gauhati High Court in batch of cases entitled North Cachar Timber Products and others v. State of Assam and ors.