DIFFRENCE BETWEEN THECONCEPT OFINDIAN FORESTACT, 1927 AND THE FOREST

CONSERVATION ACT,1980

The Forest Law of India, 1927, defines the system to be observed to declare that an area is a non-public woodland, a
blanketed woodland. It defines what a forest crime is, what the prohibited acts are inside a reserved woodland and the
consequences that may be imposed in case of violation of the provisions of the regulation. While the Forest
Conservation Act of 1980 became promulgated to assist preserve the forests of the us of a. Limit and strictly alter the
cancellation of woodland reserves or using forest land for non-forestry purposes without the previous approval of the
vital government. To this cease, the regulation establishes the conditions for the diversion of wooded area land for
non-forestry purposes.

CONVICTION INTHE INDIAN FOREST ACT,1927

When there are motives to consider that a woodland crime has been dedicated in connection with any woodland
product, stated product along with all the gear, boats, automobiles or cattle used to devote against the law of this kind,
can be seized by means of any forestry professional or officer. Of the police. Any officer taking possession of any
belongings inside the that means of this section ought to placed on such assets a signal indicating that he has been
seized and need to, as soon as viable, make a record of such seizure to the equipped choose to cope with the crime for
which the seizure turned into seized. Whenever, when the wooded area product on the subject of which it's miles
believed that this crime has been dedicated, is owned by means of the Government and the culprit is unknown, it'll be
sufficient for the officer to provide a file of the situations as soon as possible. Your legitimate superior Any forest
officer of a rank no longer much less than that of a Ranger who, or his subordinate, has seized tools, boats, carts or
livestock below section fifty two, may also launch the equal in execution from the owner of a identify for production.
Of the assets as a result freed, if and while requested, before the Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide the offense for
which the seizure was carried out.

Once the file is received, the Justice of the Peace must, with all suitable excursion, take the necessary measures for the
arrest and trial of the responsible celebration and the disposition of the belongings according with the law. 1) All
forest or woodland products not owned by using the authorities and for which a wooded area crime has been
committed and all contraptions, boats, cars and cattle used to dedicate woodland crimes may be problem to
confiscation. (2) This confiscation may be introduced to every other punishment prescribed for that crime. When the
system of any wooded area crime is terminated, any woodland product with regards to which the crime has been
committed will, if it's far owned by means of the authorities or confiscated, through a forestry reliable and, otherwise,
be disposed of. As the Court shows. -When the perpetrator isn't always recognised or can not be found, the Magistrate
can, if he reveals out that a criminal offense has been committed, order that the wooded area agent confiscate and take
fee of the property on the subject of which the offense. Or surrender to the individual whom the Magistrate deems to
be entitled to. Whenever such an order is not carried out until the expiration of one month from the confiscation date
of such goods, or without listening to the person, if any, supporting any rigging, and evidence, if any, that may present
to support your claim. The Magistrate may, despite all content, direct the sale of all assets seized pursuant to Section
52 and subject to rapid degradation and natural, and may treat income as would have treated those assets, if it had not
been sold. The official has made the seizure under section 52, or one of his senior officers, or any person who claims
to be interested in seized property, may, within one month from the date of any order passed under Article 55,
paragraph 56 or section 57., the appeal to the Court for the orders of will of such a magistrate are generally appealable,
and the order issued in an appeal is final. When a seizure order has been approved, any property has been approved in
section 55 or section 57, as appropriate, and the period limited by section 59 for recourse of the order has passed, and
is not preferable as an appeal, or when, in the in the event that such an appeal is preferred, appeal C4 confirming this
order with respect to the whole or part of said structure, said characteristic or as part of it according to the cases, it will
be given free government of all the charges. Nothing contained in this document may be interpreted as an impediment
to any official authorized for that purpose by the State Government to direct at any time the immediate release of any
property seized pursuant to Article 52. Any forest or official police officer who has seized and any property under the
pretext of seizing the confiscation responsible for the property under this law is punished with imprisonment for a
period of six months or with the fine that may extend to five hundred rupees. or with both. Anyone intending to cause
harm or injury to the public or to anyone, or to cause illicit profits as defined in the Indian criminal code
(a) knowingly falsifies on any wood or tree standing a mark used by forest officers to indicate that said tree or wood is
owned by the government or by any person, or that any person may be legally cut or removed; or
(b) alters, destroys or cancels any such mark placed on a tree or forest by the authority of a forest officer; or
(c) alter, move, destroy or deface any boundary of any forest or free land to which the provisions of this law apply,
must be punished with imprisonment for a period that may extend to two years, or a fine, or both .
1) Any forestry official or police officer without the order of a magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person
against whom there is reasonable suspicion that he is involved in a forest crime punished by imprisonment of a month
or more.
(2) Any officer who makes an arrest under this section shall, without unnecessary delay and without prejudice to the
provisions of this law release on bail, take or send the arrested person to the Magistrate competent for the case, or to
the official in charge of the nearest Police Station.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize such arrest for any act that constitutes a crime under Chapter
IV unless such an act has been prohibited by clause (c) of section 30.
Any woodland officer of rank now not much less than that of a Ranger, who, or his subordinate, has arrested a person
according to the provisions of phase 64, can also free that man or woman in his overall performance of a bond to
appear, usually and while vital earlier than the able Justice of the Peace within the case or in the front of the officer in
price of the closest police station. Prevent and interfere with the purpose of preventing the fee of any wooded area
infringement. -The district magistrate or any exceptional magistrate expressly qualified in this call by way of the
nation government can summarily choose, beneath the code of crook manner of 1898, any wooded area crime
punishable by way of imprisonment for a length no longer exceeding six months, or top Not extra than five hundred
rupees or each. The authorities of the State may additionally, via notification in the Official Gazette, authorize a
woodland officer (a) be given from any character in opposition to whom there is affordable suspicion that he or she
has devoted a forest crime, aside from against the law laid out in section sixty two or section sixty three, a amount of
cash as compensation for the crime of which suspected of getting devoted, e (b) while a belongings has been seized as
susceptible to confiscation, to launch it with the aid of paying its value as anticipated with the aid of that professional.
(2) In the charge of this amount of money, or of such cost, or both, in line with the case, to the officer, the suspect, if
in custody, need to be brushed off, the belongings, if any, may be issued. And no different proceedings in opposition
to that individual or assets will be initiated. (3) A wooded area officer shall no longer be authorized below this phase
until he's a woodland officer of a decrease grade than a forest warden and receives a monthly profits of at least 100
rupees and the amount of cash generic as reimbursement underneath of the clause (a) of subsection (1) should in no
case exceed the sum of fifty rupees. When in any intending initiated under this Act, or due to any act completed below
this Act, the query arises that any woodland product is owned through the Government, it's far assumed that this
product is owned through the Government until no longer tried. The opposite.

CONVICTION IN THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT,1980

Anyone who transgresses or incites the infringement of any of the provisions of Section 2 will be punished with a
simple jail for a period that can be extended to fifteen days. When a criminal offense has been dedicated under this
regulation:
(a) From any branch of government, the top of the branch; or
(b) by way of any authority, any person who, at the time the crime become committed, became directly accountable,
and turned into accountable to the authority to perform the affairs of authority, in addition to authority; be responsible
of the crime and will be prosecuted and punished as a consequence:
Provided that nothing contained on this subsection reasons the top of the branch or any character mentioned in clause
(b) to be problem to any punishment if it proves that the crime was dedicated without his information or that he
exercised all due diligence for save you the commission of this crime.
(2) Notwithstanding the contents of subsection (1), when a criminal offense punishable underneath the Act has been
committed by a central authority department or an authority referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) and it's been
shown that the crime has been devoted with the consent or connivance of; o is resulting from negligence at the part of
any reliable, apart from the pinnacle of the branch, or within the case of an authority, any individual apart from men
and women cited in clause (b) of subsection (1), stated officer or humans might be taken into consideration guilty of
this crime and will be prosecuted and punished for this reason.

htts://indiacoe.nic.in/handle/12356789/1760?view_type=browse&sam...
www.moef.nic.in/.../guidelines-and-rules-made-under-forest-conservation-act-1980
www.moef.gov.in/citizen/specinfo/forcon.hmtl
envfor.nic.in/legis/forest4.hmtl
extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ind3171.pdf
www.indienvironmentportal.org.in/content/447794/the-indian-forest-act-127/
LITERATURE REVIEW

1.Displacement studies tend to make rational decisions by the offender. Offenders are more likely to move when other
criminal targets are familiar or share the same "structuring characteristics of choice" with respect to the original crime
from which the offender was arrested (Cornish and Clarke, 1987; Eck, 1993). Bennett and Wright (1984), for
example, argue that displacement is a short-term psychological process, since the shift occurs when alternative crimes
are committed as a result of preventing the offender's offense. Therefore, the move is related to the same previous
decision to offend.

2. Literature overview Over the beyond five years, several researchers have evolved distinct techniques to hit upon the
movement of counterfeit copies. The counterfeit replica and pass introduces a correlation among the area of the
original image and the pasted region. This form of falsification can be detected through an immediate approach thru
exhaustive research [4]. This method is simple and effective for small pics and is computationally complicated or even
impractical for large images. To boost up the calculation, Fridrich et. Al [5] proposed an approach in which the photo
is segmented into small superimposed blocks and lexographically classifies the photograph blocks to test if the
adjoining blocks are comparable or not. To reduce the representation of the DCT block length, A.C. Popescu et.
Alabama. [6] implemented PCA (Principle Component Analysis) and detection took much less time. G .Li.Et.
Alabama. [7] introduced a neat neighbourhood technique primarily based on DWT (Discrete Wavelet Transformation)
and SVD (Single Value Decomposition). These block matching algorithms are computationally complex. Some
algorithms are vulnerable to locate the region of copy and movement after manipulations, consisting of loss
compression, blurring, or the aggregate of those operations.

CASE ANALYSIS

1.CASE NAME: The State of Bihar and anr. Vs. Kedar Sao and anr.

CITATION: Appeal (crl.) 231 of 1996

Appeal (crl.) 232 of 1996
Appeal (civil) 6643-44 of 2003

BENCH: Doraiswamy Raju & H. K. Sema.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

Upon receipt of mystery information, the Forest of Shooting, Simariya Gamma, Chatra Division South Forest, along
side a team of forest officials chased a truck with registration range UPF 7233 and confiscated approximately 445 Kg.
Of unlawful Katha together with the Truck in exercises Danear. He stated that the list of seizures had been sent to the
magistrate important additional Justice of the Peace, Chatra, along with his letter, the Forest Official Division,
Southern Division Chatra, the legal professional, primarily based on the notification of Section five of the Amendment
Law de Bihar, 1990. The deputy leader magistrate decide at the start of the movement. It was stated that the Range
Officer has submitted a file to the trial in opposition to the respondents M / s Kedar Sao and Prem Kumar that the
research on the problem found out that the seized Katha turned into illegally produced after illegally cut Khair timber
of Delho, Jarhi, Kori , Chardram and Sima blanketed the wooded area in the Chatra South Forest division and asked
the confiscation of the seized truck. After taking note of the interviewees, the legal legitimate, with the aid of order,
ordered the confiscation of the seized truck, as referred to above, inside the exercise of the powers cited in section fifty
two of the regulation. The defendants appealed to the Appeals Authority hooked up under segment 52A of that
regulation, particularly the deputy commissioner, Chatra. Of powers. Forest District Officer, Gaya, Bihar, at the side
of a set of forest officials seized eight vehicles, together with the two candidates inside the Upwan motel near
Mohaniya, in the Bhabhna district loaded with Khair wooden (Acacia catechu). It became stated that the seizure report
had also been sent to the leader judicial magistrate, Bhabhna. District Forest professional additionally seems to have
been moved, the Official Forest Divisional, Shahbad in Sasaram, Bihar, to provoke the confiscation system regarding
all those unlawful wood trucks and Khair, which turned into determined in ownership. The forestry officer of the
division, who is the officer authorized for this reason, has initiated a procedure to show the case towards the
confiscation and confiscation of the vehicles and property seized. After being attentive to the interviewees and others,
the Authorized Officer ordered the confiscation of Khair's illegal wood and the vehicles used to transport it.

JUDGEMENT: When there are reasons to believe that a wooded area crime has been devoted in reference to any
forest product, such product, collectively with all the tools, guns, boats, motors, ropes, chains or another gadgets used
to dedicate a crime, can be seized Any officer confiscating any assets below this Section ought to area on that assets a
trademark indicating that it's been confiscated and, as quickly as feasible, ought to produce the seized belongings
earlier than an officer who is not under the rank of Official Forestry Division authorized through the Government of
the State on this name by means of notification or in the case wherein, contemplating the volume or other real
problems, it isn't possible to supply the belongings seized before the authorized official, or when it's miles scheduled
to begin of a Criminal Proceedings towards the culprit Immediately, document the seizure to the decide competes to
decide the crime for which the seizure turned into completed: by means of any wooded area legitimate or authentic
louse 1. To decide the problem of disgust, it's far necessary to illustrate that the 2 provisions include inconsistent and
irreconcilable provisions, so they cannot be together or perform within the same field. 2. That there cannot be any
implicit exemption except the inconsistency seems on the face of the two statues. 3. In the area in which the 2 statutes
occupy a specific field, however there is room or opportunity that each statutes function in the same discipline without
colliding, there aren't any disgusting consequences. Four. That whilst there may be no inconsistency, but a statute
occupying the equal area tries to create separate and awesome crimes, no doubt of disgust arises and both statutes
retain to function inside the same field ".

CASES REFERRE M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India and Anr.

COMMENT: The worried and able government shall be at liberty to pursue similarly course of movement on account
of our selection and to this extant, the intervening time orders already exceeded shall not stand in their way.

2.CASE NAME: Harish Chandra Singh and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and ors
CITATION: 2002 (1) AWC 562

BENCH:A.Bhushan

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : Signatories have leased the aforementioned 50.00 acre plot of Zamindar prior to
the abolition of Zamindari. It become alleged that the region on behalf of the wooded area have been wrongly
registered in Khata numbers 262 and 263 and that the area had been registered by the reserved khata forest. The
Forestry Department has additionally promoted an objection that the registered name of the Forest land is accurate and
that the unique areas of the identical parcels had been erroneously registered in the call of various holders of
possession, which may be certified. It turned into offered with the aid of the Forestry Department that the plots n. 2, 45
and forty one are reserved forests. A notification become issued according with Sections four, 6 and 20 underneath the
Forest of India Act of 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the "1927 Act"), in regards to land registered as woodland,
consequently, there's no proper to the possession of the aforesaid. Land. It turned into said that the notification stated
in Section four of the "1927 Act" was issued on March 16th. 1954 and posted in the U. P. Gaceta. The proclamation
beneath Section 6 of the US law turned into posted on 20.6.1963 and, in the long run, the notification pursuant to
Section 20 of the Forest Law become posted on three.8.1966. Apart from the signatories, while other holders have
objected to claiming unique regions, or on the basis of income deeds of various individuals or rentals of Gaon Sabha
or Zamindar. A comparable dispute is in (2) Section 9 wherein the mandate holders who other writing requests are
written requests nos. 37863 2001 37866 2001 37868 2001 41227 2001 41319 2001 have emerged.

JUDGEMENT: the allegations presented with the aid of the petitioner's legal professional haven't any basis. There is
not any mistakes inside the judgment of the consolidating government that, in view of the notification issued under
Article 20 of India's forestry regulation, 1927, the land is reserved for the forest and the objectors cannot claim any
proper the land cited The consolidation government additionally mentioned that none of the objectors raised
objections in proceedings under the Forestry Act of India, 1927.

CASES REFERRED: Harish Chandra singh and others vs deputy director

Shivnath vs A.D.J.AND others.

COMMENT: In view of the above discussions and for the reasons given in the judgment of this Court dated
7.11.2001 in Writ Petition No. 35386 of 2001, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petitions.
The writ petitions lacks merit and are dismissed.

3.CASENAME: Karna Laxman Gawali And Others vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 27 March, 1989

CITATION: (1989) 91 BOMLR 134, 1990 CriLJ 163, 1989 MhLJ 780

BENCH: H Suresh, V Mohta

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

The signatories Karna Gawali, Hira Gawali and Pandu Wada are nomads who migrate from one place to another with
their livestock. At the time of the facts they settled in the village of Zari in the Chandrapur district, which is located near
a forest. On 25-6-1988, herds of about 125 grazing cattle were traced to the depths of compartment n. 345 of a private
forest. The cattle belonged to the signatories. Three peasants took care of the cattle. With the help of around 150
workers hired by forest agents, an attempt was made to capture livestock herds. After realizing the forest officers and
the workers, the breeders fled. 65 heads of cattle were trapped in the forest and a large number ran to the village
where they were chased and captured. The livestock has been seized. Some statements have been recorded and a
justified case report has been sent to petition signatories under S. 61 (B). why the seized livestock should not be
confiscated under S. 61-A (3). The signatories admitted that they did not have the license to graze livestock in the
forest, that the cattle had entered the forest and that they could pay a fine. In fact, they also showed a willingness to
pay the fine. One of his opinions was that they had gone to the market and went to the cattle because of animal
instinct. The second interviewee, after conducting an investigation, recorded the belief that a cattle grazing offense
was committed and / or allowed to the livestock to violate the law S. 26 (1) (d) and damage the trees below section S.
26 (1) (f) and the said livestock was instrumental in the commission of those crimes. Therefore, he ordered the cattle
seized under S. 52 (1) to be confiscated under S. 61-A. This order was challenged on appeal pursuant to Section 61-
D before the Court of Sessions, who had the pleasure of referring the matter to the second interviewee for further
inquiries. As a result, a new survey was also carried out, 7 people were examined. The petitioners questioned them
through a lawyer and also examined the defense witnesses. After listening to the signing order of the signatories it
was done again. The appeal was presented to the Judge of Sessions by the signatories but without success and
therefore this request. The facts found are –

i) the cattle have been grazed and / or authorized without authorization to be invaded in the forest reserved by the petitioners with
the help of the shepherds;

(ii) livestock ate and damaged forest products such as grass, young bamboo plants and other young trees and caused damage to the
melody of Rs. 4.68 lakh;

(iii) guilt was even admitted; is

(iv) the defense of livestock that had been lost in the forest simply by animal instinct despite all the possible precautions on the
part of the owners was incorrect.

JUDGEMENT:
The discovery of the facts on which the belief in the forest crime commission referred to in paragraph 61A was also
questioned was also raised. The Assistant Apprentice of the Government Defender is right when he states that this is
not admissible in the written jurisdiction, since there is no perversity in appreciating the evidence.It was also argued
that the forest is not reserved. This dispute was not raised before the second defendant. Furthermore, we see no reason
to doubt the accuracy of the position of respondents that compartment n. 345 was a private forest. According to the
second condition of subsection (2) of S. 52, it is argued that the infringement in relation to which a real estate is seized
is not a notified product or property of the State government. Apart from the fact that this point is raised for the first
time in the course of the arguments before us, we can not see how this condition is relevant to the dispute before us. In
these circumstances, we see no merit in this petition. The rule is rejected and discarded.

CASES REERRED :emperor vs mohammed khan AIR 1938 Nagpur 365 : (1938 (39) Cri LJ 700),

COMMENT:. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, interim order of stay granted by this Court
shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks to enable the petitioners to move the Supreme Court.Petition
dismissed.