Forest-produce, tools, etc., when liable to confiscation
Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 deals with forest-produce, tools, etc., when liable to confiscation. All timber or forest-produce which is not the property of [Government] and in respect of which a forest-offence has been committed, and all tools, boats, carts and cattle used in committing any forest-offence, shall be liable to confiscation. The Act came into force on 21 Sep 1927.
(1) All timber or forest-produce which is not the property of 1[Government] and in respect of which a forest-offence has been committed, and all tools, boats, carts and cattle used in committing any forest-offence, shall be liable to confiscation.
(2) Such confiscation may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence.
STATE AMENDMENTS
Maharashtra
Amendment of section 55 of Act 16 of 1927.--In section 55 of the principal Act,--
(a) in sub-section (1), for the words shall be liable by order of the convicting court to forfeiture the words shall be liable to confiscation shall be substituted;
(b) in sub-section (2), for the word forfeiture the word confiscation shall be substituted;
(c) in the marginal note, for the word forfeiture the word confiscation shall be substituted.
[Vide Maharashtra Act 21 of 2015, s. 6].
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (UTs).--
Section 55.- For sub-section (1), substitute the following sub-section:--
(1) All timber or forest produce which in either case is not the property of the Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, and all tools, arms, boats, carts, equipment, ropes, chains, machines, vehicles, cattle or any other article, in each case used in committing any forest offence shall, subject to the provisions of section 52, 52A and 52B, be liable to confiscation upon conviction of the offender for such offence.
[Vide the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of Central Laws) Order, 2020, notification No. S.O. 1123(E) dated (18-3-2020) and Vide Union Territory of Ladakh Reorganisation (Adaptation of Central Laws) Order, 2020, notification No. S.O.3774(E), dated (23-10-2020).]
Uttar Pradesh
Amendment of section 55--In section 55 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1) for the words "vehicle and cattle used in committing any forest offence" the words "vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles used in committing such forest office" shall be substituted.
[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 1 of 2001, s. 9].
Uttarakhand.--
Amendment of section 55.--In section 55 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1) for the words "Carts and cattle used in committing any forest offence" the words "vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles used in committing forest offence" shall be substituted.
[Vide Uttarakhand 10 of 2002, s. 9].
Maharashtra.--
Amendment of section 55 of Act XVI of 1927.--In section 55 of the principal Act,--
(a) in sub-section (1), for the words "shall be liable to confiscation," the words, figures and letter "shall, subject to section 61G, be liable by order of the convicting court to forfeiture.", shall be substituted;
(b) in sub-section (2), for the word "confiscation" the word "forfeiture" shall be substituted;
(c) in the marginal note, for the word "confiscation" the word "forefeiture" shall be substituted.
[Vide Maharashtra Act VII of 1985, s. 10].
Maharashtra.--
Amendment of sections 52,53 and 55 Act XVI of 1927.--In sections 52, 53 and 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (XVI of 1927), for the word "carts", wherever it occurs, the word "vehicles" shall be substituted.
[Vide Maharashtra Act XXV of 1953, s. 2].
Section 55, The Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act 16 of 1927).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of M P vs Kallo Bai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Court held that confiscation of forest produce and of the vehicle used in committing a forest offence is a quasi-judicial proceeding before the authorised officer that runs independently of, and parallel to, the criminal prosecution; confiscation therefore does not await a conviction, and the authorised officer may confiscate on his own satisfaction that a forest offence has been committed, the owner's protection lying in the defence of absence of knowledge or connivance and of reasonable precautions taken.
On this section: It construes the confiscation liability that Section 55 fastens on forest produce and on the tools, carts and vehicles used in a forest offence, holding that liability arises from the offence itself and is not dependent on the outcome of the criminal trial.
-
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement order-20.pdf 2019-03-26 (Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta JJ.). Tool DATE-CHECK FP on 2011 seizure dates — body New Delhi; March 26, 2019. Indian Forest Act s.52 (MP amendment): once authorised-officer confiscation initiated, Magistrate CrPC 451 release barred (s.52-C); confiscation independent of criminal trial. Map Forest Act 52.
On this section: It works out how the confiscation liability of forest produce and of the vehicles and tools used in a forest offence is to be enforced, holding that the authorised officer and not the criminal court controls the seized property, and that the owner's remedy is the knowledge-and-connivance defence within those proceedings.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… That is not the case with the "forfeiture". Vehicle or any other property used for committing the forest offence can be forfeited by way of penalty in addition to the punishment prescribed for the offence. In view of the aforesaid substitution of the word "forfeiture" in place of "confiscation" in section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, the truck not being owned by the accused could not be forfeiture. The reason is obvious that forfeiture of the truck which is not owned by the accused is no penalty to the accused and it would be the penalty to the real owner who had no hand in the commission of the offence and who is not …
-
… has operated the tractor in question in accordance with law and it is apparent on the face of record that the respondent No. 5 is absolute owner of the land in question, as is reported by the respondent No. 6 and therefore, no forest offence case is made out against the petitioner. There is apparent violation of Section 52 and 55 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 and the vehicle in question cannot be confiscated in the light of the judgment passed by the full bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of MP . Which is affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner is absolute owner of the vehicle, therefore, liable to …
-
… Respondent No. 3 has issued show cause notice dated 12.04.2016 to the petitioner to explain his defence under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act 1927. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that under Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 any article seized under the forest offence can only be confiscated upon conviction of the offender. In the present case, the trial is going on and final outcome of the trial is awaited. Therefore, the conviction cannot be done by the respondent authorities. On the aforesaid ground, …
Questions about Section 55
What have the courts held on Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act?
State of M P vs Kallo Bai is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: It construes the confiscation liability that Section 55 fastens on forest produce and on the tools, carts and vehicles used in a forest offence, holding that liability arises from the offence itself and is not dependent on the outcome of the criminal trial. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Indian Forest Act 1927 55, section 55 Indian Forest Act 1927, section 55 of the Indian Forest Act. People searching for it also type indian forest act 1927 section 55. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of M P vs Kallo Bai.
What should I read with Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 52 (Seizure of property liable to confiscation), section 53 (Power to release property seized under section 52), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act come into force?
Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, cited as Indian Forest Act 1927 55, came into force on 21 Sep 1927, having been enacted on 21 Sep 1927. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation4491 words
- 38. Protection of forests at request of owners2928 words
- 61. Saving of power to release property seized2876 words
- 82. Recovery of money due to Government2108 words
- 20. Notification declaring forest reserved1635 words
- 2. Interpretation clause1380 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 17 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.