Forest Range Officer v. Khushboo Enterprises, AIR 1989 SC 1011

FOREST RANGE OFFICER V. KHUSHBOO ENTERPRISES

Whether sandalwood oil is considered a “wood oil” and hence, “forest produce” under Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961
Whether the process of collecting the oil should have relevance in considering the character of the oil so collected?

Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961: “Forest Produce” includes the following when found in or brought from, a forest, that is to say- (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce of trees, and charcoal.

Doctrine of Purposive Interpretation: This doctrine considers the purpose of the law when the language is unclear or ambiguous, or when the legislative intent of a provision of a statute isn’t immediately clear. A statute consists of two parts- the letter and the sense. This doctrine involves considering both parts- the objective and subjective purposes of the law.

The petitioner is a dealer in essential oils like Citronella Oil, Sandalwood Oil etc.
Pursuant to an order received from M/s. S.S. Perfumers, Kanpur to supply 200 kgs of Sandalwood Oil, petitioner despatched the same from Kozhikode Railway Station.
When the consignment reached Palakkad Railway Station, the first respondent seized the consignment alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence u/s. 51(1) of the Act.
The petitioner alleges that the sandalwood oil is not a ‘wood oil’ and hence is not a “forest produce” within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Act as only natural produce can be ‘forest produce’. It is alleged that since ‘sandalwood oil’ is extracted by distillation, which is a manufacturing process, the same is not a ‘forest produce’. ‘Wood oil’ is the only oil collected by exudation from living Dipterocarpus trees and is considered to be “forest produce”.

Sandalwood in any form is “timber” within the meaning of 2(f)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the Court held that sandalwood oil is a wood oil and hence is a “forest produce” within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Act.
The Court held that oil collected from Dipterocarpus trees and Sandal trees is natural oil, which is latent in the tree. The only difference is that in the former, oil is collected by exudation, and in the latter, it is extracted. The Court held that though the process is different in both cases, the oil so collected is natural oil latent in the respective trees. All that is produced by nature alone would be considered to be “forest produce”.