State Of Kerala vs Jossy Sequeria

State of Kerala ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Jossy Sequeria …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed by the State of Kerala

against the final judgment dated 23.03.2006 passed

by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P.

No. 1924 of 2003 wherein the High Court allowed

the revision petition filed by the respondent herein

and quashed the confiscation order.

2) The controversy involved in the appeal is short.

However, few facts need mention to appreciate the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2017.09.09 13:31:44 IST issue involved.

Reason: 1

3) The appellant is State of Kerala. On

29.11.1998, the police sleuths seized 3 bags of

sandalwood weighing 20 Kg. from one Jeep bearing

Registration No. KA-12-2932. Basheer-the driver of

the Jeep was arrested and handed over to the

custody of Assistant Wild Life Warden, Tholpetty.

The Jeep was also handed over to the said authority

for further action in the case.

4) On investigation, it was revealed that the

respondent is the owner of the Jeep. His statement

was accordingly recorded. The authority concerned,

on investigation, prima facie found that the forest

produce seized was a Government property and the

same was being illegally transported in the Jeep.

5) A show cause notice was accordingly issued to

the respondent on 06.03.1999 to appear before the

authorized officer. The respondent was heard.

Finding no satisfactory reply, the authorized officer

confiscated the forest produce and the Jeep under

2 Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by order dated

30.04.1999.

6) The respondent, felt aggrieved of the order

dated 30.04.1999, filed appeal before the Additional

District Judge Wayanad. By order dated

07.04.2003, the Appellate Court dismissed the

appeal. The respondent, felt aggrieved of the order of

the Appellate Court, filed revision petition before the

High Court.

7) By impugned order, the High Court allowed

the revision and quashed the confiscation order. It

is against this order of the High Court, the State of

Kerala has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by

way of special leave before this Court.

8) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in the appeal.

3

9) We find that the High Court while allowing the

respondent's revision petition for quashing

confiscation order had placed reliance on the

decision of the Kerala High Court in Bhargavan vs.

Divisional Forest Officer, 1994(2) KLT 29. We have

perused the decision rendered by the Kerala High

Court in the case of Bhargavan (supra) wherein the

High Court (Single Judge) on somewhat similar

facts alike herein interpreted Section 61-A of the Act

read with the Rules and had quashed the

confiscation order impugned therein.

10) We are in agreement with the reasoning of the

High Court recorded in the case of Bhargavan

(supra). In this view of the matter, the High Court

in this case was justified in deciding the issue in the

light of law laid down by the Kerala High Court in

Bhargavan's case (supra).

11) We also find in this case that the Courts below

held on facts that firstly, the seized goods in

4 question were being brought from Karnataka by the

owner of the Jeep; and secondly, it could not be

proved that the goods belonged to the State of

Kerala.

12) With these two findings of fact recorded by the

Courts below, the High Court was justified in

quashing confiscation order made under Section

61-A of the Act. We find no good ground to set aside

these findings of fact.

13) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is

found to be devoid of merit. It thus fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

…...

……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

September 05, 2017

5