TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court reverses decision on sandalwood possession case, highlighting lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>BHARATH BOOSHAN AGGARWAL Versus STATE OF KERALA</h3> BHARATH BOOSHAN AGGARWAL Versus STATE OF KERALA - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of possession of sandalwood oil.2. Interpretation of 'forest produce' under the Kerala Forest Act.3. Application of Section 27 and Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act.4. Burden of proof and presumption of culpability.5. High Court's interference with the Sessions Court's acquittal.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Possession of Sandalwood Oil:The appellants were found in possession of 460 kgs of sandalwood oil, seized at Karipur airport, and an additional 73.6 kgs from their premises. The prosecution alleged that the possession and movement of sandalwood oil without a transit license were illegal under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act. The appellants contended that they held a valid license to manufacture sandalwood oil and that sandalwood oil was not a 'forest produce.'2. Interpretation of 'Forest Produce' under the Kerala Forest Act:The appellants argued that sandalwood oil does not fall under the definition of 'forest produce' as per Section 2(f) of the Act, which includes timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, and roots of sandalwood. The High Court, relying on previous judgments (e.g., Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohammed Ali), concluded that sandalwood oil is indeed a forest produce. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation, emphasizing that the inclusive definition of 'forest produce' should be construed to fulfill the Act's purpose of conserving forest wealth.3. Application of Section 27 and Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act:Section 27(1)(d) penalizes possession of forest produce illicitly removed from a reserve forest. The High Court held that the appellants failed to account for the large quantity of sandalwood oil, invoking the presumption under Section 69, which assumes forest produce to be government property unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court noted that Section 69 presumes ownership but does not imply culpable mental state required under Section 27(1)(d).4. Burden of Proof and Presumption of Culpability:The High Court placed the burden on the appellants to prove the legitimacy of their possession of sandalwood oil. The appellants presented documents and invoices to show lawful procurement of raw materials. The Supreme Court highlighted that the prosecution must first establish beyond reasonable doubt that the forest produce was illicitly removed or possessed knowingly. The presumption under Section 69 relates to ownership, not culpable mental state.5. High Court's Interference with the Sessions Court's Acquittal:The High Court reversed the Sessions Court's acquittal, which had accepted the appellants' explanation and documentation. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its reasoning, noting that the prosecution failed to disprove the appellants' evidence or establish illicit removal of forest produce. The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate interference is warranted only for compelling reasons, which were absent in this case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the Sessions Court's acquittal. The appeal was allowed, recognizing that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proving the appellants' conscious knowledge of illicit possession of sandalwood oil. The presumption under Section 69 was deemed insufficient to establish culpability without evidence of mens rea.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
