Seizure Of Vehicle Following Seizure Of Forest Produce Has To Be Effected Within A Reasonable Period Of Time: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that there has to be a reasonable nexus between the vehicle and the forest produce seized, as well as a reasonable interval between the seizure of the produce and the seizure of the vehicle.

Otherwise, the seizure of the vehicle after a long time will prejudice the owner and driver of the vehicle with regard to discharging their burden under the statute, the Court said.

The Court was considering a Petition referring the legal question as to whether the decision in Divisional Forest Officer v. Amina [1999 (1) KLJ 433] and DFO, Kothamangalam v. Sunny Joseph [2002 (3) KLT 641] express divergent views, and if so, whether a reference to a Full Bench is required.

The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed, "....From both the judgments, same principle emerges that there has to be a reasonable nexus between the vehicle and the forest produce seized, as well as a reasonable interval between the seizure of the produce and the seizure of the vehicle, otherwise the seizure of the vehicle after a long time will prejudice the owner and driver of the vehicle with regard to discharging their burden under the statute. The question of whether seizure of the vehicle after the seizure of the forest produce is within the reasonable time and with justifying reasons for the delay, and whether there is evidence to connect the vehicle to the seized products, will depend on the facts of each case which the Court will have to decide. Neither the decision in the case of Amina nor the decision in the case of Sunny Joseph has laid down any absolute principle in this regard that the words “together with” in Section 52 of the Act of 1961 means simultaneously or that it can mean any time."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate P. Shanes Mehtar while the Respondent was represented by Government Pleader Nagaraj Narayanan.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner claimed to be the owner of the vehicle which was taken into custody on August 01, 2024 by the Range Forest Officer on the allegation that it was used for illegal transportation of timber from the forest. The Petitioner moved the Court of Judicial Magistrate for interim custody of the vehicle and his case was that he had nothing to do with the cutting or removal of timber and that he was not aware of its transportation. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class–I rejected the Application for the interim release of the vehicle. In challenge to the same, the Petitioner submitted that he is innocent of the alleged crime, and that the vehicle is currently lying idle, leading to deterioration in its value, and that the interim release of the vehicle ought to have been granted. Counsel for the Petitioner also contended before the Single Judge that, under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, a vehicle could be seized only if it was found transporting forest produce and since the vehicle was seized several days after the timber was seized, the seizure of the vehicle was bad in law. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. Amina.

On the other hand, Special Government Pleader for the Forest Department, placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of DFO, Kothamangalam v. Sunny Joseph to contend that even if the vehicle is not seized simultaneously with the timber, it does not divest the Forest Officers to exercise the power conferred under Section 52 of the Act of 1961.

The Single Judge examined the decisions in the cases of Amina and Sunny Joseph, and opined that there could be a divergence of views between these decisions of the Division Benches and even though the subsequent decision had distinguished the earlier one, an authoritative pronouncement was necessary and that the matter needs to be considered by a Division Bench to decide whether the issue requires a reference to the Full Bench.

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that the decision in the case of Amina, relied upon by the Petitioner, was considered by the Division Bench in the case of Sunny Joseph.

The Division Bench in the case of Sunny Joseph held that Section 52 of the Act of 1961 does not imply a mandatory condition for simultaneous seizure and there could be various factual situations where the simultaneous seizure is not possible, and it would depend on the facts of each case. It was clarified that there needs to be a reasonable nexus between the vehicle and the seized forest products, and that the seizure of the vehicle should be within a reasonable period, as seizure of the vehicle after a long time would place the owner and the driver in great hardship. The Division Bench in the case of Sunny Joseph noted that the decision in the case of Amina was based on the facts of the case. Correctly so, because the discussion in the decision in Amina shows that the delay in that case was held to be unreasonable.

In the case of Amina, the seizure of the vehicle occurred long after the seizure of the forest produce, and consequently, the seizure was set aside. In the case of Sunny Joseph, the Division Bench interpreted the phrase “together with” occurring in Section 52 of the Act of 1961 and held that seizure of the vehicle cannot occur long after the seizure of the forest produce.

The Court pointed out that not only is there no conflict between the decisions in the cases of Amina and Sunny Joseph, but both the judgments are founded on the same principle.

"... The principle being that the seizure of a vehicle, following the seizure of forest produce, has to be effected within a reasonable period of time. The decision in the case of Sunny Joseph develops this principle laid down in the case of Amina further by elaborating its scope and application.....", the Court noted.

Stating that the law laid down in the case of Sunny Joseph is in the field for more than twenty three years, the Court ruled that generally, a long-standing interpretation of a statutory provision need not be re-opened unless compelling reasons exist.

"Thus, the decisions in the cases of Divisional Forest Officer v. Amina and DFO, Kothamangalam v. Sunny Joseph do not express divergent views. On the other hand, both the decisions lay down the same legal principle that the phrase “together with” in Section 52 of the Act of 1961, in respect of vehicle and the forest produce, does not mean that the seizure of both has to be simultaneous, nor does it permit the seizure at any time later. If the vehicle is not seized along with the forest produce, it has to be seized within a reasonable time and nexus. This aspect of reasonableness will depend on the facts of each case. Therefore, a reference to the Full Bench is not required", the Court ruled.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: A.M. Noushad vs. State of Kerala (2025:KER:62045)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate P. Shanes Mehtar, Advocate N. Krishna Prasad, Advocate Harkish Sreethu V.S.

Respondent- Government Pleader Nagaraj Narayanan

Click here to read/ download Order