1. Head counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is filed by the Forest authorities impugning the judgment dated 17-7-1998.
3. The facts are that the petitioner owns a tractor which, according to the appellants, was involved in some offences allegedly committed under the Forest Act. The petitioner was, therefore, asked by the authorities of the Forest Department to produce the tractor in forest office. The controversy centres around the interpretation of S.52 of the Kerala Forest Act, S.52 simply states that when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or other forest produce, vehicles used in committing any such offences may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer along with all articles being used in committing the offence. The question for consideration is whether the respondent owner of the vehicle could be asked to produce the tractor long after the commission of the alleged offence. On a plain reading of S.52, it is clear that the vehicles could be seized by the forest authorities or police officers if that was found to be involved in committing the offence. S.52 does not confer any power on the forest authorities to ask the owner of the vehicle to produce the same in the forest office much after the offence allegedly committed. Taking such a view, the learned Judge allowed the O. P. and restrained the forest authorities from calling upon the petitioner/respondent to produce her tractor before the respondents. We do not see any prima facie error in the view taken by the learned Judge in the matter.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Comments