Summary
The Supreme Court set aside confiscation of sandalwood oil seized in 1993. Under the then-applicable Kerala Forest Act, section 61A covered specified categories rather than every forest produce and did not extend to sandalwood oil. Section 69 supplied a rebuttable presumption of government ownership, not an independent confiscation power. The specific sandalwood provision added in 2010 did not apply to this earlier case.
Issues
- Whether the pre-2010 section 61A authorised confiscation of sandalwood oil.
- Whether section 69 independently empowered confiscation.
- Whether the later sandalwood amendment governed the earlier seizure.
Provisions considered
- Section 61A(1) and (2), in the pre-2010 position considered, Kerala Forest Act, 1961The quoted provisions specified timber, charcoal, firewood and ivory rather than all forest produce. Sandalwood oil was not within that confiscation power at the relevant time. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Section 69, Kerala Forest Act, 1961Raised a rebuttable presumption of government ownership of forest produce in the specified proceedings; it was a rule of evidence, not an independent grant of confiscation power. (¶¶ 14, 17)
- Section 47H, inserted in 2010, Kerala Forest Act, 1961Specifically applied seizure and confiscation machinery to sandalwood and sandalwood oil. The Court held the later provision inapplicable to the prior situation. (¶ 18)
Held
- The operative confiscation order relied on section 69, not section 61A. The Division Bench had misdirected itself by treating the order as one under section 61A despite the contrary basis recorded below. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Sandalwood oil was forest produce, but the legislature’s use of particular categories in section 61A confined its scope. The broader definition of forest produce did not expand that provision to every item within the definition. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The section 69 presumption assisted proof of government title until rebutted. It could not itself authorise confiscation; a presumption of ownership and a statutory confiscation power were distinct. (¶ 17)
- Section 47H later supplied specific sandalwood seizure and confiscation machinery. Since this dispute concerned a situation before the 2010 amendment, the amended provisions did not sustain the order. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; confiscation order set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.