Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Section 69 in Kerala Forest Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 52 in Kerala Forest Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs K.A. Kunchindammed on 16 April, 2002
A perusal of the above definition under Section 2 of the Act clearly shows that sandalwood oil would necessarily fall within the definition of forest produce. If the Authorised Officer is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, he gets jurisdiction to confiscate the property. Though only four items have been referred to in Clauses 1 and 2 of Section 61-A of the Act, sandalwood oil which can only be extracted from sandalwood tree, will come within the ambit of forest produce as defined under the Act. Since an offence committed in relation to a forest produce will come within the ambit of "forest offence" and if the Authorised Officer is satisfied that such an offence is believed to have been committed, an order of confiscation can be passed under Section 61-A read with Section 69 of the Act. A narrow or restricted meaning cannot be given to the provisions contained in Section 61-A so as to exclude all forest produce other than timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory from the ambit of the above section. Thus, in our view, the contention that the Authorised Officer was not empowered to invoke the power under Section 61-A of the Act in the instant case, is wholly untenable. It is also pertinent to note that in State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchindammed, (2002) 9 SCC 90, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that sandalwood oil is a forest produce.
Section 2 in Kerala Forest Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala And Anr. vs K. Thankaraj on 7 February, 2000
The decision in Thankaraj's case will in fact go against the appellant. The ratio in the above decision is to the effect that if the subject matter of the confiscation proceedings is a forest produce, the presumption under Section 69 of the Act could necessarily be available. In that view of the matter, the appellants cannot draw any support from the above decision.
1