Transit of forest-produce after expiry of transit pass justifies confiscation of the produce and vehicle.

The Petitioners were transporting 14,204 Kgs of red sanders logs from Bangalore, Karnataka, to Virar, Maharashtra, in a vehicle (MH-46-AF-6741)

While they possessed an exchange pass valid until July 1, 2016, the vehicle was intercepted by police at Kalamboli after the pass had expired

Upon handover to the Forest Department on July 3, 2016, officials noted that the property marks on the logs ("JAI") did not match the marks found ("FD CE-48", etc.), and nine logs lacked marks entirely.

Consequently, the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Panvel, ordered the confiscation of the forest produce and the vehicle under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Maharashtra Amendment)

The Petitioners’ subsequent Revision and Appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forest and the Additional Sessions Judge, respectively, were dismissed.

1. Whether the transportation of forest produce beyond the validity period of a transit pass constitutes a "forest offence" under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Bombay Forest Rules, 1942?

2. Whether the Authorised Officer was justified in ordering confiscation despite the Petitioners' claims of mechanical failure and minor discrepancies in property marks?

The court applied Section 2(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which defines "forest-offence" as any offence punishable under the Act or rules made thereunder

It relied on Sections 41 and 42, which empower the State to regulate forest produce in transit and prescribe penalties for rule violations

Rules 66, 68, and 129 of the Bombay Forest Rules, 1942, were invoked to establish that moving forest produce without a valid pass or in breach of pass conditions is a punishable offence

The court further referenced Section 61-A (Maharashtra Amendment) regarding the Authorised Officer's power to confiscate produce when a forest offence is believed to have been committed

Precedents including State of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana [para 29] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh [para 31] were cited to emphasize that forest protection laws must be interpreted liberally to serve as an effective deterrent against deforestation.

The Court observed that the expiry of the transit pass on July 1, 2016, was an uncontroverted fact

Under Rule 66 of the Bombay Forest Rules, 1942, any transit without a valid pass is a violation, and per Section 2(3), such a violation constitutes a "forest offence"

The Court rejected the Petitioners' defense of mechanical failure and the excuse that the pass could not be renewed due to a public holiday, noting that July 1, 2016, was not a notified holiday and no evidence of repairs was produced

Regarding the mark discrepancies, the Court held that once the foundational fact of transporting produce without a valid permit was established, the Authorised Officer had "reason to believe" a forest offence was committed

The Court emphasized that red sanders is a protected species and any deviation from transit conditions—including destination and timing—cannot be treated as a mere irregularity, as it creates opportunities for illegal exploitation

The Court found no perversity in the findings of the lower authorities and affirmed that the strict legislative intent for forest conservation must be upheld

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged