The Bombay High Court has held that a conviction for a forest offence is not a pre-condition for confiscation of a vehicle under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable in Maharashtra. The Court observed that the statutory scheme under Sections 61-A to 61-G empowers the authorised officer to confiscate forest produce and vehicles used in the commission of a forest offence, notwithstanding whether or not a prosecution has been instituted.

Justice N.J. Jamadar was hearing a writ petition challenging orders of the Authorised Officer and the Additional Sessions Judge affirming confiscation of a vehicle under Section 61-A of the Act. The vehicle was intercepted by forest officials while patrolling in August 2022. The driver allegedly fled from the spot, abandoning the vehicle. Upon inspection, forest officials found 60 bags of charcoal loaded in the vehicle and registered a forest offence for transportation of forest produce without the requisite permit. Confiscation proceedings were thereafter initiated against the registered owner of the vehicle.

The Court examined the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and the Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014. It noted that Rule 31 prohibits transportation of forest produce without a valid transit pass and that contravention of the rule is punishable under Rule 82. The Court observed that charcoal is a forest produce within the meaning of the Act and that transportation of such produce without a valid pass constitutes a forest offence.

The Court found that there was no dispute regarding the seizure of the vehicle along with the charcoal. It further noted that neither the petitioner nor the person to whom the vehicle was allegedly handed over had claimed possession of a valid transit pass. The Court therefore held that a forest offence was prima facie established.

The Court observed that the provisions contained in Sections 61-A to 61-G create an independent confiscation mechanism, and that conviction for commission of a forest offence is not a condition precedent for confiscation. The Court observed that Section 61-A operates notwithstanding the institution of prosecution and therefore the argument based on Section 55 of the Act could not be accepted.

“The provisions contained in Section 61-A to 61-G, in their application to the State of Maharashtra, enshrine a stringent statutory regime. Sub-section (3) of Section 61-A specifically empowers the Authorized Officer to seize forest-produce and order confiscation of all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence, notwithstanding whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence,” the court observed,

On the issue of natural justice, the Court found that adequate opportunity had been provided to the petitioner as well as the person to whom the vehicle was allegedly delivered. The Court noted that both had participated in the proceedings through legal representatives and were afforded an opportunity to raise their objections.

Holding that the material on record clearly indicated clandestine transportation of forest produce without a valid transit pass, the Court found no infirmity in the confiscation order and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Mahendra Dharmaji Papal v. State of Maharashtra. [Writ Petition No. 16 of 2024]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 283

Click Here To Read/Download Order