High Court frowns on Forest dept over appeal spree
The High Court of Karnataka has chided the Forest department for attempting to award “huge” punishment for a “trivial” offence.
The Division Bench consisting Chief Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice B V Nagarathna did not agree with the government advocate’s claim that Fayaz Khan, a resident of Channapatna, was guilty of illegally stocking sandalwood nine years ago.
“The only case (against Khan) is of unauthorised carrying of sandalwood (to a non-permissible place) and not of illegal storage,” the Chief Justice observed orally.
The Bench was hearing a writ appeal filed by the State government against the order of Justice Anand Byrareddy, who had ruled that Khan was not guilty of illegally transporting the 27 gunny sacks which contained 3,210 kg of sandalwood white chips.
Khan had bought the sandalwood chips from a government depot in Bhadravati, Shimoga district, and his driver, Mehaboob Khan, was transporting them to Bangalore when officials of the Forest Department confiscated them at Chamarajpet on April 28, 2003.
Mehaboob Khan was then arrested and a case under Section 86 (penalty for cutting, uprooting, or removal or damage to sandal tree owned by the government) and Section 87 (prohibition of possession, storage, or sale or attempt to sale of sandalwood, etc) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and Section 379 IPC (punishment for theft) was lodged against him. Illegal storage of sandalwood is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years. Although he was absolved of the charges later, the sandalwood chips still lay in the possession of the Forest department which refused to release them.
Fayaz Khan moved the lower courts and the High Court to reclaim the valuables, and obtained favourable verdicts each time. The Forest department, however, appealed each time, including against the one pronounced by Justice Reddy in 2009. It filed a writ appeal, praying for setting aside Justice Reddy’s order.
At the latest hearing, the Chief Justice appeared unhappy with the government’s approach. “Why don’t you spend your time on worthwhile prosecution?” he asked the government advocate, and stressed that the driver had only violated the transit permit that required the sandalwood chips to be taken not beyond Channapatna. The Bench reserved the judgment.
