<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (10) TMI 376 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413324</link>
    <description>Sandalwood oil falls within &quot;forest produce&quot; under the Kerala Forest Act because the definition is inclusive and covers wood-oil and sandalwood roots, and a restrictive reading would defeat the conservation purpose of the statute. The presumption in Section 69 is limited to ownership and does not create a presumption of mens rea or illicit origin. For Section 27(1)(d), the prosecution must first prove that the forest produce was illicitly removed from a Reserved Forest and that the accused knowingly possessed or received it. On the record, those foundational facts were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Oct 2021 08:19:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 376 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413324</link>
      <description>Sandalwood oil falls within &quot;forest produce&quot; under the Kerala Forest Act because the definition is inclusive and covers wood-oil and sandalwood roots, and a restrictive reading would defeat the conservation purpose of the statute. The presumption in Section 69 is limited to ownership and does not create a presumption of mens rea or illicit origin. For Section 27(1)(d), the prosecution must first prove that the forest produce was illicitly removed from a Reserved Forest and that the accused knowingly possessed or received it. On the record, those foundational facts were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>