Kerala High Court
Noushad vs The Forest Range Officer on 23 January, 2018
Author: B. Kemal Pasha
Bench: B.Kemal Pasha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 3RD MAGHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 8869 of 2017
CC.NO.105/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,THAMARASSERY
..............
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
NOUSHAD,S/O.YOUSUF,
PULIYANARAMBATH HOUSE, KAKKUNI VIA,
MAKKADA P.O, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
SRI.T.R.TARIN
SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE
SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
THAMARASSERY.
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE.
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031
R1 & R2 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FOREST) SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K.
R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX.M.THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 8869 of 2017 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE I THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE II THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE.
ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE.
ANNEXURE IV COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
[CR]
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl.M.C. No.8869 of 2017
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2018
O R D E R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It is alleged that the petitioner had dumped poultry waste in reserve forest, for which a case has been booked against the petitioner. The petitioner wanted to get it compounded. The forest official has demanded the production of the vehicle for permitting the compounding of the offences for initiating confiscation proceedings under Section 55 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961(for short, "the Act").
Crl.M.C.8869/2017 : 2 :
2. As per Section 52 of the Act, when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or other forest produce, such timber or produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. On such seizure, they are liable to be confiscated under Section 61A of the Act. The 'forest offence' mentioned in Section 52 of the Act does not include all forest offences; whereas such forest offence should be one in respect of 'any timber or other forest produce'. A mere trespass into the reserve forest is not a 'forest offence' dealt with in Section 52 of the Act.
3. As per Section 55(1) of the Act, when any person is convicted of a forest offence, all timber or other forest produce in respect of which such offence has been committed and all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles, Crl.M.C.8869/2017 : 3 : cattle or any other article used in committing such offence shall be liable, by order of the convicting Magistrate to confiscation. The terms 'all timber or other forest produce in respect of which such offence has been committed' should be read conjointly.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader for Forests, in case of compounding under Section 68 of the Act, it involves the admission of guilt by the accused concerned and in such case, it has to be treated as a conviction within the meaning of Section 55(1) of the Act. If a forest offence has been committed and the accused is convicted, all timber or other forest produce in respect of which such offence has been committed along with all other materials noted in Section 55(1) of the Act can be confiscated. Evidently, Section 55 of the Act is nothing but a continuation of Section 52 of the Act. As per Section 52 of the Act, the seizure shall be in respect of any timber or Crl.M.C.8869/2017 : 4 : other forest produce along with all other materials noted therein when a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or other forest produce. Similar is the wording in Section 55(1) of the Act also. When any person is convicted for a forest offence, all 'timber or other forest produce in respect of which such offence has been committed', along with all other materials used for the commission of the offence, are liable to be confiscated. The wording 'such offence' clearly reveal that the forest offence dealt with in Section 55(1) of the Act also should be one in respect of timber or other forest produce. Here, any timber or other forest produce are not involved and therefore, it cannot be said that even if it is compounded, the vehicle used for transporting the waste is liable to be confiscated.
5. It is for the forest official concerned to decide whether compounding should be permitted or not. If compounding is not permitted, Section 55 of the Act will not Crl.M.C.8869/2017 : 5 : come into play. In such case, the accused has to face trial. It is for the accused to decide as to what should be the course to be undertaken by him.
Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/23/01 // True Copy // PS to Judge