Products Created From 'Forest Produce' By Human Labour Can Also Be 'Forest Produce': Supreme Court Disagrees With Earlier Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that sandalwood oil is a 'forest produce' under Kerala Forest Act.

The court disagreed with an earlier judgment which held that that articles or products created by human toil are not per se forest products.

The distinction sought to be made defeats the purpose of the Act, because illegally procured forest produce, such as sandalwood, rosewood, or other rare species, and then worked upon, resulting in a product - predominantly based on the essential forest produce, would escape the rigors of the Act, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat said.

In this case, the court was considering an appeal against a judgment of the Kerala High Court which had restored the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act. The conviction of the accused was on a complaint filed by the Kerala Forest Department, which alleged that he illegally possessed sandalwood oil which was a forest produce.

One of the contentions raised in the appeal was that the sandalwood oil is not a forest produce for the purpose of the Act. It was contended that the reference to wood oil in Section 2 (f) cannot be said to include "sandalwood oil".

As per the Section 2(f) of the Act  "forest" includes: (i) the following whether found in or brought from, a forest or not that is, to say timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, fibres and roots of sandalwood and rosewood.

The bench noted that in Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohammed Ali 1993 Supp (3) SCC 627 , the Supreme Court disagreed with the interpretation that  sandalwood oil was not  "forest produce" and that the expression "wood oil" was referrable to items other than those enumerated (such as sandalwood, rosewood, roots, etc.) and further that wood oil referred to natural products and not those derived through processing.

However, in Suresh Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra(1996) 10 SCC 397, the court struck a discordant note, drawing a distinction between "nature's gifts" such as charcoal, mahua flowers, or minerals and, article "produced with the aid of human labour" which, according to it, was not included in the definition of "forest produce" under the Act, the bench noted.

Disagreeing with the said interpretation in Suresh Lohiya (supra), the bench observed thus:

20. It is noteworthy that in Suresh Lohiya (supra) this court made no reference and did not advert to Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohammed Ali (supra). In Suresh Lohiya also, we notice this Court sought to interpret the interplay between "forest produce", "timber" and "tree" and concluded that articles or products created by human toil are not per se forest products. This court is of the opinion that the distinction sought to be made defeats the purpose of the Act, because illegally procured forest produce, such as sandalwood, rosewood, or other rare species, and then worked upon, resulting in a product - predominantly based on the essential forest produce, would escape the rigors of the Act. Therefore, Suresh Lohiya cannot be considered a binding authority; its dicta should be understood as confined to the facts of that case."

Observing thus, the bench observe that the High Court  judgment, so far as it proceeded on the assumption that sandalwood oil is forest produce, is based on a correct appreciation of law.

However, accepting other contentions raised by the appellant -accused, the court set aside the High Court judgment and acquitted the accused. (That aspect is dealt in another report on this judgment)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment