Burden Of Rebutting Presumption That Forest Produce Is State Property Lies On Accused | Karnataka High Court Upholds Confiscation Of Vehicle Used To Transport Timber
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the writ petition challenging the confiscation of a vehicle seized for transporting timber allegedly cut from granted land. The Court held that there existed a statutory presumption that the forest produce belonged to the State and recorded that the petitioner had failed to rebut the said presumption. Consequently, it concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests and confirmed by the Sessions Court. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
The petitioner, who was the registered owner of a Mahindra Pickup vehicle bearing registration number KA-19A-3964, approached the High Court challenging the confiscation of the said vehicle. The vehicle had been seized on 29 March 2007 at Santhya in Eswaramangala Nathanigemudnoor Village, Puttur Taluk. It was alleged that the vehicle was carrying five logs of Kiralbogi timber without a valid permit.
Following the seizure, an FIR was registered and mahazars were prepared on 30 March 2007, documenting the seizure location and the spot from where the timber was allegedly felled. The petitioner was given interim custody of the vehicle on 21 July 2007 upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 80,000.
On 23 August 2007, the Deputy Conservator of Forests issued a show cause notice initiating confiscation proceedings. The petitioner replied to the notice, contending that the logs were removed from the patta land belonging to one Gopal Bhaira and not from forest land. Nonetheless, by order dated 16 April 2010, the authorised officer ordered confiscation of the vehicle to the Government.
The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Court, D.K. Mangalore, by filing Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2010. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal on 27 September 2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of writ petition.
Before the High Court, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the confiscation proceedings were contrary to law as there was no evidence to indicate that the timber belonged to the State Government. He emphasised that the trees were cut from private land and therefore did not qualify as government property. Relying on Section 62 and 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, it was argued that confiscation could be ordered only if the forest produce belonged to the Government.
Additionally, it was submitted that in light of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, trees on granted land could not automatically be considered government property unless it was established that they existed prior to the grant. The petitioner argued that such a burden of proof lay on the authorities.
In response, counsel for the State argued that Section 80 of the Karnataka Forest Act created a statutory presumption that forest produce belonged to the State. It was contended that the petitioner had failed to rebut this presumption as he did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim. It was also urged that Section 94A(6)(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provided that trees standing on land regularised pursuant to unauthorised occupation would continue to belong to the Government. Therefore, it was argued that timber cut from such land was State property.
The State further contended that the petitioner himself was driving the vehicle when it was stopped and therefore could not claim lack of knowledge. It was also pointed out that the petitioner did not stop the vehicle when directed by forest officials and attempted to flee, which indicated consciousness of wrongdoing.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj examined the statutory provisions and arguments raised. The Court observed: “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.”
With reference to the contradictions alleged by the petitioner regarding the source of the timber, the Court stated: “The aspect of contradiction would enure to the benefit of the accused if the burden of proving the offence was on the prosecution. 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.”
On the applicability of M.T. Joy’s case relied on by the petitioner, the Court recorded: “M.T. Joy's case did not refer to or make any reference to the presumption under Section 80. In that view of the matter, the aspect of presumption not having been raised in M.T. Joy's case, the said decision would not be applicable to the present fact situation.”
The Court further observed: “There is nothing which has been placed on record by the petitioner-accused to rebut the presumption under Section 80.”
Addressing the issue of whether timber cut from granted land continued to belong to the State, the Court noted: “Section 94A(6)(c) of the KLR Act would indicate that 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.”
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of trees at the time of grant, stating: “It was for the accused to prove that there was no such trees standing in the land granted as on the date of grant since there is a negative burden of proof on the accused in terms of Section 80.”
The Court further held: “The owner cannot deny the knowledge of the transport of the logs while the owner was driving the pickup truck. It is also for this reason that the decision in M.T. Joy's case would not be applicable.”
Finally, the Court concluded: “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.”
The Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that the orders of the authorised officer and the Sessions Court were proper and did not warrant interference. The Court specifically recorded: “No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed.”
By this direction, the confiscation of the vehicle was upheld and all reliefs sought in the writ petition were rejected.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: P.P. Hegde, Senior Advocate; Venkatesh Somareddy, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mahantesh Shettar, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Raviraja Rai M v. The State
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:17979
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2579 of 2014
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
[Read/Download order]
