Statutory definition of forest-produce does not extend to bamboo mat, which is a distinct manufactured product.

Bamboo mat was held not to be "forest-produce" under section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The statutory definition was construed with the related definitions of "timber" and "tree", and the Court declined to expand it to cover a commercially new and distinct product made by human labour merely because bamboo is included within "tree". Where the legislature has defined a term, the defined meaning must be applied rather than the general understanding of the word. The confiscation order therefore could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether bamboo mat is a "forest-produce" within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Analysis: The definition of "forest-produce" in section 2(4) was construed along with the definitions of "timber" and "tree". The expression was held not to extend to a commercially new and distinct product manufactured by human labour merely because bamboo itself is included in the definition of tree. The Court declined to enlarge the statutory definition by reading into it an article that is commercially different from the original forest material. It was further held that where the legislature has defined an expression, the court must apply that definition and not the general understanding of the word.

Conclusion: Bamboo mat is not forest-produce under section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the confiscation order could not stand.

---