KERALA FOREST ACT, 1961(Act 4 of 1962)

Sec.2(f) & 69  - The definition of  "forest produce" in the Act under Sec.2(f) doesn't take ivory in its purview.  The presumption under Sec.69 of the Act applies only to the "Forest Produce" so even if Sec.61A of the Act takes in its fold 'ivory's as one of the items liable to be confiscated the presumption under Sec.69 of the Act will not be available to the Government task it is not a forest produce.  So the owner of proof will lie on the forest officials that the seized ivory belonged to the Central or State Government. [State of Kerala v. K. Thankaraj, W.A.No.1574 of 1999, dated 7-2-2000.  AR. Lakshmanan & S. Sankarasubban (JJ)]


Sec.52 -- Power of the forest authorities under Sec.52 -- Sec.52 does not confer any power on the authorities to ask the owner of the vehicle to produce the vehicle in the forest office long after the commission of the offence. [ Divisional Forest Officer vs Amina. 1999(1) KLJ 433 Om Prakash {CJ} & J.B.Koshy {J}]

Sec.52(2) - 61A- Failure of the Authorised Officer in reporting the seizure of vehicle does not affect the jurisdiction D.FO. to proceed under Sec. 61A. {M.K.Sasidharan vs The Forest Range Officer. O.P.No. 12425 / 1999, 25-6-1999. K.S.Radhakrishnan (J)]

Section 52 (2) and 61A - Section 61A of the act is independent of the powers conferred in the Magistrate under section 52(2) of the act. Therefore failure on the part of the authorised officer to report the seizure of the vehicle and the timber to the Magistrate authorising him to proceed under section 52(2) of the act cannot restrict or take away the power of the authorised officer to proceed under section 61 A of the Act. [M.K.Sasidharan Vs. The forest Range Officer & others , K.S. Radhakrishnan (J) . OP 12425 / 99, Dated 25-06-99]

Sec.61(A) -- Confiscation of vehicle -- Order of confiscation of the vehicle on the ground of theft of timber after auction but before confirmation of the auction to the auction bidder . As the auction is not confirmed in favour of the auction bidder, it can be treated as the government property . Hence the order of confiscation is proper. It is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to show that he had taken reasonable and necessary precautionary measure against the user of the vehicle involved in forest offence -- Owner cannot plead 'mens rea' and cannot contended that owner was unaware of the dubious dealings of the driver of the vehicle. [ State of Kerala vs Marina Varghese . 1999(2) KLT 469 = 1999(1) KLJ 872. C.S.Rajan {J}]

 Section 75A gives authority to levy and collect forest development tax only in respect of forest produce .Coffee comes outside the definition of ‘forest produce’ . Therefore levy and collection of forest development tax under section 75A is unauthorised and illegal [C.C Aravindan Vs. The Divisional Forest Officer &others .OP No. 17737/99 dated 12-08-99 K.S.Radhakrishnan (J).

Forest - Government order No. G.O.(Rt) No.nb49/97/Forest & WLD dated 4-2-1997stating that all teak timber hard wood and other timber must be brought to the sales depot and the billets, teak poles and fire wood shall be sold through dumping depots approved by the Conservator shall prevail over the directions issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 19-5-1999 declaring Klappara Dumping site as Sales Depot. [State of Kerala and others vs T.Manoharan Pillai and others. WA.No. 2394/1998, AR.Lakshmanan (Ag.CJ) & S.Sankarasubban(J)]

 

BACK TO MAIN PAGE