1993 (5) TMI 167 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether sandle wood oil is forest produce within the meaning of Section 2 (f) (1) of the Kerala Forest Act 1961? Held that - Sandalwood oil is wood oil within the meaning of s. 2 (f) (i) of the Act. Therefore it is a forest produce. Necessary conclusion is that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. It is for the Trial Court to find whether the offence as imputed to the accused has been made out the trial. We need express no opinion at this stage. The appeals of the State are allowed and the appeal of the accused is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether "sandalwood oil" is considered "forest produce" within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the trial court under Section 51(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether "sandalwood oil" is considered "forest produce" within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961:

The primary legal issue presented was whether "sandalwood oil" qualifies as "forest produce" under the definition provided in Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The Act defines forest produce to include items such as timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, fibers, and roots of sandalwood and rosewood, among others.

The contention from the accused's side was that sandalwood oil, being a by-product derived through an industrial process from sandalwood, does not fall under the category of "wood-oil," which they argued is naturally exuded from living trees in the forest. They supported their argument with references to technical dictionaries, botanical texts, and expert opinions, which distinguish between wood oil derived from Dipterocarpucoae family trees and sandalwood oil produced industrially.

Conversely, the respondents argued that the inclusive definition of forest produce should be interpreted broadly to include sandalwood oil. They emphasized that the legislative intent and the purpose of the Act, which is to conserve forest wealth and maintain ecological balance, would be defeated by a narrow interpretation. They also pointed out that sandalwood, being a forest produce, implies that oil extracted from it should also be considered forest produce.

The court rejected the narrow interpretation proposed by the accused, stating that such an interpretation would frustrate the purpose of the Act. The court emphasized that the term "forest produce" is inclusive and should be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the legislative intent of conserving forest wealth. The court held that the process by which the oil is extracted (whether natural or industrial) and the purpose for which it is used are not decisive factors. The court concluded that sandalwood oil is indeed "wood oil" within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Act and, therefore, is forest produce.

2. Jurisdiction of the trial court under Section 51(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961:

Given the conclusion that sandalwood oil is forest produce, the court addressed the jurisdictional question under Section 51(1) of the Act. The High Court had previously quashed the complaint against the respondents, holding that sandalwood oil is not wood oil and, therefore, not forest produce. This decision was overturned by the division bench, which held that the trial court has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial.

The Supreme Court upheld the division bench's decision, affirming that the trial court has jurisdiction to try the case under Section 51(1) of the Act. The court emphasized that it is for the trial court to determine whether the offense as imputed to the accused has been made out during the trial.

Conclusion:

The appeals of the State were allowed, and the appeal of the accused was dismissed. The court held that sandalwood oil is wood oil within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, and is, therefore, forest produce. Consequently, the trial court has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial under Section 51(1) of the Act. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting legislative provisions in a manner that aligns with the broader purpose and intent of the law, particularly in the context of environmental conservation and the protection of forest resources.

← Previous Next →