Suit for damages for a vehicle seized over forest offences and released after about fifteen months; trial court awarded Rs.35,000 for loss of earnings, mental agony and legal expenses. The High Court found the seizure legal, no inordinate delay, and officials entitled to Section 74 indemnity, setting aside the decree and dismissing the suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945
RFA NO. 257 OF 2004
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2003 IN O.S.NO.175 OF 1995 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS IN THE OS:
1 N.K.SASIDHARAN, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WAYANAD DIVISION, WAYANAD DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AT TIMBER SALES DIVISION, CALICUT.
BY ADV.NAGARAJ NARAYAN, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF IN THE OS:
1 K.R.RAMAKRISHNAN(DIED), S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KARIPPAYIL HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O., SULTHANBATHERY TALUK.
2 ADDL.R2 – SUKUMARI, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. K.R RAMAKRISHNAN, KARIPPAYIL HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O , SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673593. 3 ADDL.R3 - REGHU K. R., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. K.R RAMAKRISHNAN , KARIPPAYIL HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O , SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT 673593.
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004 -: 2 :-
BY ADVS. K.R.JINAN – R2 TO R4 PHILIP MATHEW – R2 TO R4 M.A.SHAJI – R2 TO R4
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 12.02.2024, ALONG WITH CO.115/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004 -: 3 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945 CO NO. 115 OF 2004
CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT IN RFA:
THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SOLE CROSS OBJECTOR ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.CROSS OBJECTORS 2 TO 4 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 31/8/2022 IN IA 1/2022. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW – CO2 TO 4 SRI.K.R. JINAN – CO2 TO 4 SRI.M.A. SHAJI – CO2 TO 4
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS IN RFA:
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004 -: 4 :-
2 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.NAGARAJ NARAYAN, SPL.GP
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 12.02.2024, ALONG WITH RFA.257/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
A decree for damages is under challenge in this
appeal and cross objection, by the defendants and the plaintiff respectively.
the then DFO, sought for payment of bribe for the release of vehicle. The suit was filed claiming damages under various heads, including cost of repairs, loss of earnings, mental agonies, etc.
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
-: 2 :-
written statement, denying the allegations levelled
against him, including the alleged demand for bribe. It was contended that the seizure of the vehicle was for
the involvement in illicit transport of rosewood and teak logs. Confiscation proceedings were initiated under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, immediately
after the seizure. The plaintiff got release of the vehicle in good condition. On these contentions, it was prayed that the suit to be dismissed. The 2nd defendant adopted the said contentions.
damages for the vehicle. It, however, granted a decree for Rs.35,000/- towards loss of earnings, mental agony and legal expenses. The decree for damages is challenged in the appeal by the defendants, and the plaintiff through the cross objection, challenges the liability.
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
-: 3 :-
Special Government Pleader, for the appellants and Shri.Philip Mathew, the learned counsel for the respondents.
contains the report of the Range Officer. The report is to the effect that the vehicle is liable to be
confiscated as involved in forest offence. Accordingly, the confiscation proceedings were initiated. Section 52
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
-: 4 :-
involved in forest offence, in connection with the investigation. It is simultaneous thereto that the confiscation proceedings were also initiated. The trial court was right in having held that the confiscation was legal. Point 1 is answered accordingly.
and the vehicle was released on 08.02.1994. According to the plaintiff, he had made applications as per Exts.A3 and A4 for release of the vehicle. Since the same was not considered by the defendants, the plaintiff had to approach this Court in O.P.No.11701 of 1993 and O.P.No.17360 of 1993. It is only pursuant thereto that the vehicle was released on 08.02.1994. Even then, the 1st defendant had made demand for cash payment of Rs.10,000/- for early release of the vehicle, it is alleged.
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
-: 5 :-
carbon copy of an application alleged to have been
submitted. There is no material to show that Ext.A3 was in fact submitted to the defendants. Ext.A3 does not
contain any endorsement to the said effect. So also, there is no postal receipt or acknowledgment. Ext.A4 is the application dated 14.07.1993. The postal
acknowledgment in respect of the same is produced. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would rely
on the fact that Ext.A4 makes reference to Ext.A3 application, which would probabilize the submission of Ext.A3 application. However, the mere fact that Ext.A4 application makes a reference to Ext.A3 application by itself is not sufficient to find that Ext.A3 was
submitted. Here, it is relevant to note the time gap between Exts.A3 and A4, i.e., from 11.11.1992 to 14.07.1993. If Ext.A3 was submitted on 11.11.1992, under normal circumstances the plaintiff would had followed it
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
-: 6 :-
up by giving subsequent representations. There being no evidence to find the submission of Ext.A3 application or any other applications apart from Ext.A4, it could only be held that the plaintiff made application for release of the vehicle only on 14.07.1993.
Rs.1,50,000/- and on executing a bond. Thereafter he approached this Court in O.P.17360 of 1993 contending that he is unable to furnish bank guarantee and that the vehicle may be released on furnishing adequate immovable
property. This Court accepted the prayer and as per judgment dated 17.12.1993, directed release on the
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004 -: 7 :-
petitioner furnishing adequate security by way of immovable property. In State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan [(2020) 7 SCC 80] , the Apex Court has held that, release of a vehicle involved in forest offence is not the rule but the exception. In due compliance with the directions of this Court in the original petitions, the DFO ordered release of the vehicle. There is no
material to find that there was any inordinate delay on the part of the defendants in ordering release of the vehicle.
on 08.02.1994. The judgment of this Court in
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004 -: 8 :-
O.P.No.17360 of 1993 was on 17.12.1993. But for a mere
statement regarding the alleged demand for money by the 1st defendant, no details are pleaded or proved. So also, as noticed supra, the evidence on record does not disclose any inordinate delay having been caused by the defendants with regard to release of the vehicle.
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
-: 9 :-
of the Forest Act.
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
-: 10 :-
The decree and judgment of the trial court to the extent it granted damages for loss of earnings, mental agony and legal expenses are liable to be interfered with.
Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned counsel would contend that, unless there is due authorisation by the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant could not appear, plead or act on behalf of the 1st defendant. In spite of personal allegation having been levelled against the 1st defendant, he did not care to mount the witness box. This is fatal, it is argued. Adverse inference is to be drawn against him, it is contended. In support of his argument he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Iswar Bhai C.Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera and another (1999) 3 SCC 457 .
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
-: 11 :-
statements. As could be noticed from the written statement of the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant had adopted the contentions of the 1st defendant, who was in the office during the relevant time. The evidence to be adduced in the case is essentially with regard to the official acts based on official records. The 1st defendant in his personal capacity could not have produced the same. At any rate, the evidence on record establishes that the allegation levelled personally against the 1st defendant and of the inordinate delay allegedly caused by the defendants are unsubstantiated. In the light thereof, the non-examination of the 1st defendant, cannot have any significance in the instant case. So also, with regard to the objection to the filing of a joint appeal, there is no prohibition under law, prohibiting the same. The 1st defendant is an employee of the 2nd defendant. The allegations are in
R.F.A.No.257 of 2004 & C.O.No.115 of 2004
relation to the acts done while on duty. Filing of a single appeal could not be faulted in the said circumstances. So also, no objection with regard to the maintainability, if at all any, was raised by the respondents till the final hearing of the appeal. The respondents had even filed cross objections in the appeal. At any rate, it does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court. The contention lacks merit.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside and the suit will stand dismissed. The memorandum of cross objection is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE
yd
3 issues framed by the court
Was the seizure and confiscation of the vehicle under the Kerala Forest Act legal?
Was there inordinate delay by the defendants in releasing the vehicle, and are officials protected by Section 74 indemnity?
Is a joint appeal by defendants 1 and 2 maintainable despite personal allegations against the first defendant?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka v. K. KrishnanRelied on¶10
State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan [(2020) 7 SCC 80] · Who else cites this
Iswar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera and anotherDistinguished¶15
Iswar Bhai C.Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera and another (1999) 3 SCC 457 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
N.K. Sasidharan
State of Kerala
K.R. Ramakrishnan (died)
Sukumari
Reghu K.R.
Sheeja K.R.
Sathish Ninan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
