CRL.MC No. 179 of 2008 · Kerala High Court

V. RAMKUMAR, J.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Crl.M.C. Nos. 178 and 179 of 2008* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 28-01-2008ORDERThe petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 178 of 2008 is one A.C. Jafer who is an accused in O.R. 7 of 2007 of Mananthavady Forest Rangeregistered for an offence punishable under Sec. 27(1)(e) read with Sec. 52 of the Kerala Forest Act . The petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 179 is one Pathumma who claims to be the registered owner of a MahindraJeep bearing Reg. No. KL.12-D.171. The petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.178 of 2008 claims to be the purchaser of 432 kgms. of karuppa bark(cinnamon bark) which was seized from the Mahindra Jeep in question by the forest officials on 7-11-2007. While according to the petitioners, the bark was collected from the trees standing in a private property of one Pudukkutty Abdullah, comprised in Sy. No. 336/1,according to the Forest Department, the bark was collected from the cinnamon trees standing in the forest area.

Petitioners moved theJ.F.C.M., Mananthavady by filing applications as C.M.P. Nos. 2033 and2077 of 2007 under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle and for release of the bark in question respectively. Both the applications were dismissed as per Annexure A4 separate order dated 27-12-2007.It is the said orders which are assailed in these Crl. M.Cs. filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. -:2:-Crl.M.C. Nos. 178 and 179 of 20082.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 179 of 2008 namely, the registered owner of the Jeep would contend that the cinnamon bark in question is not a “forest produce” as defined under Sec. 2 (f) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 since according to him the bark was collected from a tree standing in aprivate property outside the forest and falling under clause (i) of Sec. 2(f) wherein the bark will fall under the definition of “forest produce” only if it pertains to sandal wood or rosewood trees . But, according to Sri.

K. S. Sivakumar, the learned Public Prosecutor, clause (i) of Sec. 2 (f) is attracted if the bark is collected from a tree whether itis sandal wood or rose wood or some other tree whether found in anya forest or not. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the various elements namely, timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, fibres and roots of sandalwood and rosewood in the said clause (i) of Sec. 2 (f) is attracted only if the bark in question is collected from a sandal wood or rosewood. But the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, fibres and roots of sandalwood and rosewood, if collected from any tree including sandalwood or rose wood would attract clause (i) and in the case of sandalwood and rosewood trees, the roots and fibres are also brought under the definition. I am, prima facie , inclined to accede to the above contention on behalf of the State.

However, this is only an -:3:-Crl.M.C. Nos. 178 and 179 of 2008observation made for the purpose of this petition and this observationis not intended to foreclose a final verdict on the question at the appropriate stage. Prima facie, the vehicle which has been seized in this case is liable for confiscation under Sec. 61 A and is now before the authorised officer. This Court has already taken the view that pending finalisation of the confiscation proceedings the authorised officer has got the power under Sec. 53 of the Kerala Forest Act to grant interim release of the vehicle on the applicant satisfying the conditions therein. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 179 of 2008 to seek interim custody of the vehicle from the Authorised Officersubject to confiscation under the provisions of the Act. With regard to the cinnamon bark, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. 178 of 2008 cannot get interim custody of the same.

If he is aggrieved by the confiscation proceedings, he will be getting notice from the Authorised Officerand he can then work out his remedies under Sec. 61 (D) of the Act. Accordingly Crl.M.C. No. 178 of 2008 is dismissed and Crl.M.C.179 of 2008 is disposed of as above.V. RAMKUMAR, JDGE.ani. -:4:-Crl.M.C. Nos. 178 and 179 of 2008