LI Network
Published on: December 31, 2023 at 15:25 IST
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court clarified that Camptothecin doesn’t fall within the definition of forest produce according to Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
The judgment was issued following a set of petitions filed by individuals accused of stealing forest produce. The Court emphasized that a product loses its forest produce classification when it’s transformed through human effort and recognized as something distinct by the commercial sector.
The bench, led by Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak, stated, “Camptothecin cannot be classified as forest produce. Therefore, the question of considering it otherwise doesn’t arise in this case. Hence, we declare that Camptothecin is not forest produce.”
The case revolved around the illicit felling of Narkya trees in Chandoli National Park in 2005, involving multiple offenses against numerous individuals and companies linked to the process of cutting trees and producing Camptothecin.
The petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the criminal cases against the accused.
The petitioners referenced the Calcutta High Court’s decision and a Division Bench’s ruling, both upholding the determination that Camptothecin doesn’t qualify as forest produce.
The court framed the central issue: “Is the seized Camptothecin considered forest produce?”
Examining Section 2(4) of the Forest Act, which defines forest produce, the court highlighted various items classified as such, including materials obtained from forests like timber, charcoal, and resin. However, it emphasized that Camptothecin didn’t align with these definitions.
The controversy arose when the Conservator of Forests sought to treat 22 kgs of seized Camptothecin as stolen forest produce. The petitioner clarified that the substance was procured through a legitimate order and had no connection with raw material suppliers.
Given the toxicity of Camptothecin, the Conservator of Forests requested permission to retain it in custody for sampling, which was yet to receive a response. This led to the Calcutta High Court’s decision, asserting that Camptothecin wasn’t forest produce due to its transformation from Mapia Foetida via a chemical process.
The Bombay High Court concurred with this view, stating that Camptothecin, as a commercially distinct product, shouldn’t be classified as forest produce. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal cases against the petitioners.
