Seizure Of Forest Produce & Vehicle Used To Commit Forest Offence Must Be Made Within 'Reasonable Interval': Kerala High Court Clarifies

The Division Bench of Chief Justice of Nitin Jamdar and Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a question referred by a Single Judge to examine whether there was a divergent view made out in the decisions in Divisional Forest Officer v. Amina [1999 (1) KLJ 433] and DFO, Kothamangalam v. Sunny Joseph [2002 (3) KLT 641].

According to Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, when there is a reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed, a forest officer or a police officer may seize the forest produce together with the vehicle used in committing in the offence.

The referred decisions decided on the meaning of the phrase “together with” used in the provision. In Amina, it was decided that seizure of the vehicle “long after” and “must after” the produce was unreasonable.

As per Sunny Joseph, the high court held that there is no mandate to simultaneously seize vehicle and produce. In the latter decision, it was further said that seizure of vehicle should be within reasonable time so as not to cause hardship to its owner and driver. There must also be reasonable nexus between the two seizures.

After considering the law laid down by the decisions and the provisions under the Act, the Court observed that the two cases "do not express divergent views". In fact, the bench said, that both the decisions lay down the same legal principle that the phrase “together with” in Section 52 of the Act of 1961, in respect of vehicle and the forest produce, "does not mean that the seizure of both has to be simultaneous, nor does it permit the seizure at any time later". 

It said:

“From both the judgments, same principle emerges that there has to be a reasonable nexus between the vehicle and the forest produce seized, as well as a reasonable interval between the seizure of the produce and the seizure of the vehicle, otherwise the seizure of the vehicle after a long time will prejudice the owner and driver of the vehicle with regard to discharging their burden under the statute. The question of whether seizure of the vehicle after the seizure of the forest produce is within the reasonable time and with justifying reasons for the delay, and whether there is evidence to connect the vehicle to the seized products, will depend on the facts of each case which the Court will have to decide.”

In the case before the Single Judge, the petitioner had challenged the decision of the Magistrate court rejecting his plea for interim custody of his vehicle, which was seized by the forest officials for allegedly transporting timber illegally from the forest. According to the petitioner, he is innocent of the alleged crime and the vehicle seized is currently lying idle and getting deteriorated in value.

According to the Division Bench, there is no conflict in the decisions referred and thus, it directed that the case be placed before the Single Judge for disposal.

Case No: ICR (Crl.M.C.) No. 16 of 2025

Case Title: A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 519

Counsel for the petitioner: P. Shanes Methar, N. Krishna Prasad, Harkish Sreethu V.S.

Counsel for the respondents: Nagaraj Narayanan – Special Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment