RAVI K S AND ANR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Validity of Confiscation Under Forest Act for Transportation of Forest Produce Beyond Transit Pass Expiry and Property Mark Discrepancies.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:13198
Decision Date: 17-03-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Forest Act, 1927; Bombay Forest Rules, 1942; Constitution of India, Article 227; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482; Maharashtra Act 7 of 1985 (Forest Amendment)
- Facts: The Petitioners were transporting 14204 Kgs of red sanders logs from Bangalore, Karnataka, to Virar, Maharashtra, in a vehicle. While an initial exchange permit was issued and subsequently replaced by a Maharashtra State Forest Department exchange pass, the permit expired on 1st July 2016. On 3rd July 2016, the vehicle was found stationed at Kalamboli, Maharashtra, due to alleged mechanical issues and heavy rains. Upon inspection by forest officials, it was discovered that the specific property marks (JAI) mentioned in the transit pass were missing from the logs, and other marks were found instead. Consequently, the Forest Department initiated confiscation proceedings for the forest produce and the vehicle, citing violations of Section 41 of the Forest Act, 1927.
- Procedural Posture: The Assistant Conservator of Forest ordered the confiscation of the vehicle and produce under Section 61-A. This was upheld in revision by the Chief Conservator of Forest under Section 61-C and subsequently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, in an appeal under Section 61-D. The Petitioners then approached the High Court of Bombay under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Issue: Whether the transportation of forest produce beyond the validity period of a transit pass and with discrepancies in property marks constitutes a 'forest-offence' justifying confiscation under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
- Holding: Yes, the petition was dismissed. The court held that transit in contravention of the conditions of a pass, including its validity period, amounts to a forest-offence.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 41 of the Forest Act and Rule 66 of the Bombay Forest Rules, 1942, strictly prohibit the movement of forest produce without a valid pass. Since the pass had admittedly expired on 1st July 2016 and the vehicle was intercepted on 3rd July 2016, a forest-offence was committed "eo instanti". The Court rejected the Petitioners' excuse regarding a public holiday (Jamat Ul-Vida) as factually incorrect and found no evidence of mechanical failure. The Court emphasized that forest laws must receive a "purposive interpretation" to maintain ecological balance. Under Section 61-A(3), once an authorized officer is satisfied that a forest-offence has been committed regarding the produce, they have no discretion but to order confiscation. Minor discrepancies in marks were deemed immaterial compared to the fundamental lack of a valid permit at the time of interception.
🔒 For Members Only