Case: State of Maharashtra vs Arjun Tabadu Mahajan - 1988 (1) BomCR 603

The Range Forest Officer, Shahada, filed a complaint before JM (First Class), against 49 persons (Arjun Tabadu Mahajan and Ors.) under Section 26(1)(d), for trespassing and permitting 260 cattle to graze in the reserved forest. All the cattle were seized

The accused pleaded guilty in front of the Magistrate and they were convicted. Magistrate further ordered that the cattle seized in the case to be confiscated to the state.
Aggrieved by the order, the respondents appealed to the Sessions Court which held that the requirement of Section 55 is that the offence must be committed in respect of timber of forest produce and the offence under Section 26(1)(d) is not against timber or wood. The Sessions Court set aside the order passed by the Magistrate.
The petitioner contended that the interpretation of the provision of Section 55 of IFA by Additional Sessions Judge is not correct and on proper interpretation, the learned Magistrate was right.

Judgment:

- Section 55 makes it clear that all timber of forest produce which is not the property of Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, shall be liable by order of the convicting court of forfeiture. The other part of the section states that all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle are also liable to forfeiture.

- Forest offence has been defined in Section 2(3) of IFA to mean an offence punishable under the Act. Therefore the offence under Section 26(1)(d) is also forest offence and any cattle used in committing forest offence is liable for forfeiture.

- The words used in Section 55 are not any such offence but any forest offence and, there fore the cattle that is liable for forfeiture cannot be restricted only to such of them which is concerned with forest offence committed in respect of only timber.

- The Act says that the Court shall order confiscation to the property seized, except where an order of confiscation has already been passed by the Authorised Officer. This curtails the power of the Magistrate to order confiscation on conviction of an accused, when AO has already ordered confiscation.

- For offences under IFA, the complainant should always give evidence of the actual damage caused to the forest with a view to enabling the Court to award proper compensation. That would facilitate the court to decide whether order of forfeiture under Section 55 should be passed or not.

- The words used in Section 55 to the effect shall be liable by order of convicting Court to forfeiture, vest the discretion with the trial Court.

Case: Ahmadji vs State of Madhya Pradesh - AIR 1986 MP 1

A truck loaded with Mango tree logs, owned by Ahmadji, was seized from a saw mill at night. One Idu Khan was in the truck. Since no transit pass was produced, the truck along with logs of wood was seized under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act.

Idu Khan expressed a desire to compound the offence, and the Divisional Forest Officer compounded the offence and confiscated the truck under the Section 68 read with Section 55 of IFA. Ahmadji filed an application before CJM for the release of truck. The CJM held that the court has no jusidiction as the matter was compounded by the DFO.

Upon filing of Misc. Criminal case, the court held that a fresh application can be made by the petitioner and magistrate can pass necessary order for the release of truck as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner earlier. Accordingly the CJM passed an order for the release of truck. Three days later, the DFO again confiscated the truck after issuing show cause notice. Later the court held that the remedy for the fresh confiscation was to appeal against the order of DFO under Section 52A of amended IFA. Petitioner instead filed petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Judgment:

- The logs of mango trees come within the definition of the forest produce.

- Under Section 55 of original IFA, the order for confiscation can be passed only by the Magistrate, and not by the DFO.

- Under the amended Indian Forest (M.P. Amendment) Act 1983, the Authorised officer can co0nfiscate the forest produce and the vehicle used for committing the offence.
Provision for appeal and revision are provided in Section 52A and 52B respectively. Section 52C of amended IFA bars the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with disposal of forest produce and vehicle, after a due intimation received from DFO about initiation of confiscation proceedings.

- Amendment to the Indian Forest Act cannot be applied retrospectively.

- The court held that the vehicle should be released as per the order of CJM after executing a Supradnama, and the order of confiscation by DFO had been quashed.

Case: Mehta Brothers vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 1980 CriLJ 289

In two different incidents, two different trucks were intercepted by the Police and it was found in both instances that the truck was carrying 46 Deodar wood logs in excess of the challan produced by the drivers. In both the cases, the drivers admitted their guilt and convicted under Section 42 of IFA. In both cases the CJM ordered the forfeiture of the 46 logs of Deodar wood in favor of the State.
The petitioner (Mehta Brothers) filed appeals against the order of confiscation in the Sessions Court, where the orders of forfeiture were upheld. The petitioner filed petitions challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Judge in appeals.
In both the petitions, the petitioner claimed that no opportunity was given to substantiate its cause before the orders of forfeiture were passed.
The respondent (State), contends that the petitioner should have approached the CJM to substantiate its claim before the order was passed. It further contended that an appeal under Section 59 of IFA is not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party before the CJM.
The petitioner claimed that the scope of Section 59 of IFA is wide enough for it to make an appeal even if it had failed to approach the trial court. It also contended that the stance of Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that timber is liable for confiscation irrespective of the fact whether the timber belongs to the accused or not.

Judgment:

- There is no dispute between the parties that the forfeited logs are owned by the petitioner, and the petitioner did not extend its claim before the CJM. It is also not disputed that the drivers did not claim the property as their own, and they were convicted only for transporting excess logs without valid permit.

- The principle of natural justice requires that a person cannot be adversely affected without affording him a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his cause.

- Under Section 59 of IFA, any interested party is given a substantive right to prefer an appeal against the order of forfeiture. There is no bar in the section that no person would be entitled to prefer an appeal who has not extended his claim before a Magistrate. Thus the petitioner was competent to seek redress in the court of Sessions Judge.

- The phrase shall be liable for confiscation in Section 55 of IFA does not mean that the property stands automatically confiscated. It is presupposed that an opportunity is to be given to the person affected before the property is actually ordered to be confiscated.

Case: Mehta Brothers vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 1980 CriLJ 289

In two different incidents, two different trucks were intercepted by the Police and it was found in both instances that the truck was carrying 46 Deodar wood logs in excess of the challan produced by the drivers. In both the cases, the drivers admitted their guilt and convicted under Section 42 of IFA. In both cases the CJM ordered the forfeiture of the 46 logs of Deodar wood in favor of the State.

The petitioner (Mehta Brothers) filed appeals against the order of confiscation in the Sessions Court, where the orders of forfeiture were upheld. The petitioner filed petitions challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Judge in appeals.

In both the petitions, the petitioner claimed that no opportunity was given to substantiate its cause before the orders of forfeiture were passed.The respondent (State), contends that the petitioner should have approached the CJM to substantiate its claim before the order was passed. It further contended that an appeal under Section 59 of IFA is not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party before the CJM.

The petitioner claimed that the scope of Section 59 of IFA is wide enough for it to make an appeal even if it had failed to approach the trial court. It also contended that the stance of Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that timber is liable for confiscation irrespective of the fact whether the timber belongs to the accused or not.

Judgment:

- There is no dispute between the parties that the forfeited logs are owned by the petitioner, and the petitioner did not extend its claim before the CJM. It is also not disputed that the drivers did not claim the property as their own, and they were convicted only for transporting excess logs without valid permit.

- The principle of natural justice requires that a person cannot be adversely affected without affording him a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his cause.

- Under Section 59 of IFA, any interested party is given a substantive right to prefer an appeal against the order of forfeiture. There is no bar in the section that no person would be entitled to prefer an appeal who has not extended his claim before a Magistrate. Thus the petitioner was competent to seek redress in the court of Sessions Judge.

- Under the amended Indian Forest (M.P. Amendment) Act 1983, the Authorised officer can co0nfiscate the forest produce and the vehicle used for committing the offence.
Provision for appeal and revision are provided in Section 52A and 52B respectively. Section 52C of amended IFA bars the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with disposal of forest produce and vehicle, after a due intimation received from DFO about initiation of confiscation proceedings.

- The phrase shall be liable for confiscation in Section 55 of IFA does not mean that the property stands automatically confiscated. It is presupposed that an opportunity is to be given to the person affected before the property is actually ordered to be confiscated.

Case: Kamlesh vs State of Maharashtra - (1996) 98 BOMLR 889, 1997 CriLJ 1399

- Tractor and trolley of the applicant Kamlesh was seized as it was carrying sand from forest for the offences punishable under Section 26(1)(c)(d) and (g) of the Indian Forest Act.

- The Forest Officer has reported the seizure of the tractor and trolley along with sand to the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

- The applicant has filed an application for supratnama.

- The Judicial Magistrate First Class has held that sand is a forest produce and under Section 52 of the Act, the property is liable to be confiscated and forfeited and held that the Court has no jurisdiction to release the property.

Contention by the petitioner:
- Section 61(A) to (G) are not applicable in the present case, as the sand is not notified forest produce.

Judgment:

- There is no dispute that the sand is a forest produce.

- Section 52(2) second proviso lays down that whether the offence on account which the seizure has been made is in respect of timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or such other forest produce as may be notified by the State Government from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the notified forest produce) and which is the property of the State Government, such officer shall make a report of such seizure also to the concerned authorised officer under Section 61(A) of the Act.

- If a report is made under Section 61(A) of the Act to the authorised Forest Officer, then the trial Magistrate does not get jurisdiction to release the property on Supratnama.

- Otherwise the trial Magistrate has jurisdiction.

- The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The application of applicant for releasing the tractor and trolley on supratnama is granted.

Case: Abdul Aziz vs Union Territory of Tripura - 1963 CriLJ 558

- The petitioner , Abdul Aziz was detected by the Plantation Watcher peeling off the bark of a Sal tree within a Protected Forest after he had cut down the tree.

- When plantation watcher tried to arrest him for the forest offence, the petitioner gave a blow with a dao causing injury and then ran away from the place.

- The petitioner was convicted by the lower court for Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension(sec 224 IPC) and Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means(sec 324 IPC).

Contention by the petitioner:

- Plantation Watcher is a private person and was not empowered to arrest the petitioner under the Indian Forest Act.

- So the petitioner was entitled for his right of private defence to free himself from the clutches of plantation watcher.

- So hurting the plantation watcher was no offence either under Section 224 or 324 I.P.C.

Judgment:

- Power to arrest without warrant under section 64 of IFA makes the offences under section 33(1)(a) cognisable.

- But Section 65 shows that any person arrested could be released on his executing a bond to appear before a magistrate. Hence, it is clear that the offence is not a non-bailable offence.

- It follows that a private person cannot arrest under Section 59 Cr.P.C. for a forest offence.

- Plantation watcher is appointed by the Divisional Forest Officer who has been empowered to appoint Forest Officers.

- If a plantation Watcher sees a person cutting down a protected tree from a plantation, he has to protect such trees. He is carrying out the purpose of the Indian Forest Act.

- So a Plantation Watcher is a Forest officer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.