Burden Of Rebutting Presumption That Forest Produce Is State's Property Lies On Accused Booked Under State Forest Act: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has held that under the State Forest Act there is a presumption that a forest produce belongs to a State government and the burden on rebutting the presumption lies on the accused booked for offences under the Act such as illegally transporting such produce. For context, Section 80 (Presumption that forest produce belongs to Government) when in any proceedings taken...
The Karnataka High Court has held that under the State Forest Act there is a presumption that a forest produce belongs to a State government and the burden on rebutting the presumption lies on the accused booked for offences under the Act such as illegally transporting such produce.
For context, Section 80 (Presumption that forest produce belongs to Government) when in any proceedings taken under this Act or in consequence of anything done under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, a question arises as to whether any forest produce is the property of the State Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the State Government until the contrary is proved, and in case of any prosecution the burden of proving the contrary shall lie on the accused.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Raviraja Rai M who had challenged the order of the session court upholding order of the authorities confiscating his pick up vehicle which was used for transporting wooden logs without permit.
The court referred to Section 80 of Karnataka Forest Act and said:
"A perusal of the said provision would clearly indicate that any forest produce shall be presumed to be the property of the State government until the contrary is proved and in the case of any prosecution, the burden of proving the contrary shall lie on the accused. Section 80 imposes a negative burden of proof on the accused which is required to be so discharged by the accused. It is not in dispute that the logs are forest produce inasmuch as there are logs of trees which grow in the wild and or in forest...In the present case as indicated by Section 80 of the KFA there is a presumption of the logs being forest produce and the burden of proving otherwise is on the accused, that is the petitioner herein. The Petitioner has not led any evidence of himself or of any other person but has only cross-examined the witnesses of the prosecution".
The court thus held, "Thus, I answer point number one by holding that there is a presumption that a forest produce belongs to a State government and the said presumption has to be rebutted by the person against whom such an offence is alleged. In the present case the petitioner has not rebutted the said presumption".
Background
A case was registered for offences under section 32(Power to grant privileges in district forests), 62(Seizure of property liable to confiscation), 71A(Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases) and 80 of the Karnataka Forest Act alleging that on 29-03-2007 at Santhya in Eswaramangala Nathanigemudnoor village, the forest officers had seized the said vehicle containing 5 logs of Kiralbogi Timber.
On 23-08-2007 a show-cause notice came to be issued by Deputy Conservator of Forest, which was replied to by the petitioner. He did not lead any evidence but, however, cross examined the witnesses of the prosecution. Following which the order of confiscation was passed.
The same was challenged before the sessions court which rejected the plea.
The petitioner contended that he is the RC holder of the vehicle in question. He is not involved in any offence of cutting any trees; at the most, there was only transport of felled trees using the vehicle of the petitioner, which the petitioner had no knowledge of.
Further, logs were cut from the private property of Gopal Baira and not from any forest. There is absolutely no evidence which has been placed on record as to when the trees were planted whether it was before the grant or after the grant and as such, it cannot be said that the trees would belong to government.
The government opposed the petition submitting that except to contend that the logs were from the private property of Gopal Bhaira, no evidence of Gopal Bhaira and or his wife Sundari having been led, the petitioner has not rebutted the presumption under Section 80 of Karnataka Forest Act.
The presumption continues to hold thereby making applicable Section 62 and 71 of the KFA Act, it said.
Further, the grant of land being on account of unauthorised occupation of a government land, the said trees standing on the land, will continue to be the property of the State, it added.
Finally, referring to Section 71B(2) it was submitted by the government that an order of confiscation could be passed in respect of any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle. What is confiscated in the present matter is the vehicle used for transport of the said logs, as regards which no fault can be found with since there was forest offence committed by the vehicle by transporting a forest produce without any licence or permission, it added.
Findings:
The court noted that the vehicle was driven by the owner himself, that is the petitioner. It said that it is not the case that the vehicle was let out, leased, etc., to any third party, it is the owner of the vehicle himself who was driving it, with the vehicle carrying the tree logs that is forest produce.
The court said “Therefore, the owner cannot deny the knowledge of the transport of the logs while the owner was driving the pickup truck.”
Observing that “The powers under Section 71A and 71B, read in conjunction with Section 80 of the KFA, would indicate that there being a presumption of a forest produce belonging to the government, the Authorised Officer could confiscate the same unless the presumption is rebutted.”
It added “Hence, the contention that the vehicle could not be confiscated, cannot be sustained.”
Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that logs were cut from private property, the court said, “Even if the land were to be granted and it becomes a private property of the grantee, the trees if any standing on the said land granted and, the grantee of such land shall continue to belong to the government.”
Then it held “The timber which has been cut is from the land which was granted by way of regularising the unauthorised occupation is the property of the government requires the application of Section 62, 71B(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 94A(6)(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.”
Accordingly it dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Raviraja Rai M And State of Karnataka
Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate P P Hegde for Advocate Venkatesh Somareddy
Counsel for Respondent: AGA Mahantesh Shettar
Citation No 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
Case No: WP 2579/2014