2021 (10) TMI 376 - SC - Indian Laws

Reserve forest - removal of sandalwood oil illegally, or without authorization from any reserve forest, or area - presumption of culpability in the event possession - rebuttable presumption - Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act - HELD THAT - In the present case, the appellant did not dispute ownership of the articles seized. Section 69 of the Act enacts presumption, that when possession of a forest produce is found with someone, that it is deemed to belong to the state (or central) government. Now, this presumption is a rebuttable one; several decisions of this court have said that the burden of proving the foundational facts, which will give rise to the presumption, is upon the prosecution - In the present case, there is no contest about the fact that the goods were seized from the premises of the appellant, and belonged to him. The goods seized from the airport, were to be shipped to overseas destinations. In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the foundational facts, i.e. possession of the forest produce, were proved by the State. Whether the appellant proved that the produce was procured properly? - HELD THAT - There can be no dispute that sandalwood oil is a forest product. However, Section 27 (1) (d)- which enacts the offence- and which has been applied in this case, points to the offender s conscious mental state when it enacts that whoever knowingly receives or has in possession any major forest produce illicitly removed from a Reserved Forest would be subjected to the prescribed punishment. The presumption under Section 69 is with respect to not a conscious mental state, or a direction by the legislature that a certain state of affairs is deemed to exist, but with respect to ownership of the property i.e. that it belongs to the state, unless the contrary is proved. In the present case, the State had to show, that the forest produce was illicitly removed, or was illicitly in the possession of the accused, and in either case, that the same was within his knowledge. This foundational fact has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the accused has to establish, a credible or reasonable explanation - The state no doubt has led evidence to show that the goods seized bore the labels of the appellant s firm and further that no transport licence was available. However, this per se does not establish illicit possession of forest produce within his knowledge. The High Court fell into error, in holding that the presumption that the seizure of forest produce belonging to the State, automatically can result in a presumption of culpable mental state of the accused- in other words, that seizure of the goods ipso facto meant that the appellant had conscious knowledge about their illicit nature or origin, or that the accused s inability to account for a transit pass, implied that they procured the goods illegally, thus attracting Section 27 - the materials on the record show that the evidence in the possession of the defence and furnished to the state, was not even produced in court, nor was the primary evidence to substantiate the state s contentions in that regard, proved. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of possession of sandalwood oil.
2. Interpretation of "forest produce" under the Kerala Forest Act.
3. Application of Section 27 and Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act.
4. Burden of proof and presumption of culpability.
5. High Court's interference with the Sessions Court's acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Possession of Sandalwood Oil:
The appellants were found in possession of 460 kgs of sandalwood oil, seized at Karipur airport, and an additional 73.6 kgs from their premises. The prosecution alleged that the possession and movement of sandalwood oil without a transit license were illegal under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act. The appellants contended that they held a valid license to manufacture sandalwood oil and that sandalwood oil was not a "forest produce."

2. Interpretation of "Forest Produce" under the Kerala Forest Act:
The appellants argued that sandalwood oil does not fall under the definition of "forest produce" as per Section 2(f) of the Act, which includes timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, and roots of sandalwood. The High Court, relying on previous judgments (e.g., Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohammed Ali), concluded that sandalwood oil is indeed a forest produce. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation, emphasizing that the inclusive definition of "forest produce" should be construed to fulfill the Act's purpose of conserving forest wealth.

3. Application of Section 27 and Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act:
Section 27(1)(d) penalizes possession of forest produce illicitly removed from a reserve forest. The High Court held that the appellants failed to account for the large quantity of sandalwood oil, invoking the presumption under Section 69, which assumes forest produce to be government property unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court noted that Section 69 presumes ownership but does not imply culpable mental state required under Section 27(1)(d).

4. Burden of Proof and Presumption of Culpability:
The High Court placed the burden on the appellants to prove the legitimacy of their possession of sandalwood oil. The appellants presented documents and invoices to show lawful procurement of raw materials. The Supreme Court highlighted that the prosecution must first establish beyond reasonable doubt that the forest produce was illicitly removed or possessed knowingly. The presumption under Section 69 relates to ownership, not culpable mental state.

5. High Court's Interference with the Sessions Court's Acquittal:
The High Court reversed the Sessions Court's acquittal, which had accepted the appellants' explanation and documentation. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its reasoning, noting that the prosecution failed to disprove the appellants' evidence or establish illicit removal of forest produce. The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate interference is warranted only for compelling reasons, which were absent in this case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the Sessions Court's acquittal. The appeal was allowed, recognizing that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proving the appellants' conscious knowledge of illicit possession of sandalwood oil. The presumption under Section 69 was deemed insufficient to establish culpability without evidence of mens rea.

← Previous Next →