Supreme Court Sets Aside Confiscation of Sandalwood Oil by Kerala Forest Authorities

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of M/s. Standard Essential Oil Industries & Anr. v. Forest Range Officer Kasargod & Ors., set aside the confiscation of 125 kg of sandalwood oil by the Kerala Forest Department. The Court ruled that the confiscation was unlawful as sandalwood oil was not covered under the provisions of Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, at the time of seizure.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising R.K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, clarified that confiscation provisions under Section 61A applied only to specific forest produce, and sandalwood oil was included under these provisions only after an amendment in 2010.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a raid conducted by the Kasargod police on April 16, 1993, at the residence of the managing partner of M/s. Standard Essential Oil Industries. During the raid, the police seized 125 kg of sandalwood oil, alleging that it had been removed from the firm’s factory without authorization.

The Kerala Forest Department issued a show cause notice under the Kerala Forest Act, proposing to confiscate the sandalwood oil. The appellants argued that the oil was part of their legally accounted stock and was stored at the residence due to maintenance work at their factory.

The Divisional Forest Officer, rejecting the appellants’ explanation, ordered the confiscation of the seized sandalwood oil. The appellants challenged this order before the Kerala High Court, but both the single bench and division bench upheld the confiscation.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether sandalwood oil was covered under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act at the time of confiscation.
• Whether the Kerala High Court erred in upholding the confiscation despite recognizing that the provision was inapplicable.
• Whether Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act, which presumes that forest produce belongs to the government unless proven otherwise, could justify confiscation.

Arguments Presented

Appellants’ Arguments

The appellants argued:

• That the confiscation order was illegal because Section 61A did not include sandalwood oil at the time of the seizure in 1993.
• That the oil was legally purchased and accounted for in their stock registers.
• That they had documentary proof, including invoices, showing that part of the oil was procured from M/s Punjab Aromatic.
• That their factory was under maintenance, and the oil was temporarily stored at the managing partner’s residence.
• That Section 69 of the Act could not be used to presume government ownership without evidence.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Kerala Forest Department argued:

• That the seizure was valid since the appellants failed to provide immediate proof of legal possession.
• That Section 69 created a presumption in favor of the government, shifting the burden of proof to the appellants.
• That even though Section 61A was later amended to include sandalwood oil, the confiscation was justified under the broader powers of the forest authorities.

Supreme Court’s Observations

Confiscation Under Section 61A Was Unlawful

The Supreme Court ruled that the confiscation of sandalwood oil under Section 61A was illegal:

“Section 61A applies only to timber, charcoal, firewood, and ivory at the time of the confiscation. The provision was later amended to include sandalwood oil in 2010, which means the confiscation order in 1993 had no legal basis.”

Section 69 Creates a Presumption, Not a Confiscation Power

The Court clarified that Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act only provides a presumption of government ownership and does not grant direct confiscation powers:

“Section 69 is only a rule of evidence that presumes forest produce belongs to the government unless proven otherwise. It does not itself empower confiscation.”

Stock Registers and Invoices Were Valid Proof

The Court held that the appellants had produced sufficient documentation to prove the legality of their stock:

“The appellants provided stock registers and invoices that adequately explained the presence of the seized oil, rebutting the presumption under Section 69.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation order:

• The confiscation of 125 kg of sandalwood oil was declared illegal.
• The Kerala Forest Department was directed to return the confiscated sandalwood oil to the appellants.
• The government was ordered to bear the costs of the litigation.

Implications of the Judgment

• This ruling clarifies that confiscation powers under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act are limited to specific forest produce mentioned in the provision.
• It emphasizes that amendments to laws cannot be applied retrospectively to justify past confiscations.
• The judgment reinforces that mere presumptions under Section 69 cannot replace actual proof in forest-related offenses.
• Businesses dealing in forest produce must maintain proper documentation to prevent wrongful seizures by authorities.
• The ruling sets a precedent for ensuring fairness in forest law enforcement and preventing arbitrary confiscations.

This landmark judgment reaffirms the need for adherence to statutory provisions and ensures that businesses are not unfairly penalized due to misinterpretation of forest laws.

Petitioner Name: M/s. Standard Essential Oil Industries & Anr..
Respondent Name: Forest Range Officer Kasargod & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Kasargod, Kerala.
Judgment Date: 19-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ms. Standard Essent vs Forest Range Officer Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category