JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2006, by which the challenge of the writ petitioner/respondent against notice issued by the appellant dated 16th July, 2005 and the order dated 19th July, 2005, was upheld. 2. The short fact leading to filing of the writ petition and preferring the instant appeal is as follows : On 16th July, 2005, the appellant issued a notice to the respondent/writ petitioner proposing to take action on the ground of theft and use of stolen medicinal plant material Mappia Foetida in connection with manufacturing of finished product Camptothecin. The said notice was issued, apparently under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Indisputably, the appellant has the authority to take action under the provisions of the said Act; provided there has been infraction of law, mentioned therein. 3. It is alleged in the notice that the respondent/writ petitioner is alleged to have contravened the provisions of law, using the forest produce. In sum and substance, it is alleged that Camptothecin is really forest produce without having undergone any radical and real change from raw material. 4. The learned trial Judge did not accept the contention of the appellant that the aforesaid material is a forest produce. 5. The appellant proceeded with the impugned notice dated 16th July, 2005, treating Camptothecin as a forest produce and on the allegation of theft thereof, action was taken. 6. Now, the question is whether Camptothecin can be termed to be a transformed form of forest produce, in any sense, for taking action under the aforesaid Act or not. 7. Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contends that the aforesaid product, though finished one, owes to the original forest produce Mappia Foetida being the raw material and the same is admittedly a forest produce. 7. Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contends that the aforesaid product, though finished one, owes to the original forest produce Mappia Foetida being the raw material and the same is admittedly a forest produce. He draws our attention to the inclusive definition of forest produce as mentioned in section 2 subsection (4) of the said Act, which is as follows : “Forest produce includes : (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say – timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua seeds,[kuth] and myrabolams, and (b) 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 not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees, (ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants, (iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals and (iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including lime-stone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries) 8. To buttress his submission, he has placed reliance on two decisions of Supreme Court (i) A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 120) (The Forest Range Officer and Ors. – vs- Khushboo Enterprise) and (ii) A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2088 (State of M.P. –vs- S.P. Sales Agencies and Ors.). 9. According to Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, having regard to the said two decisions of Supreme Court and also expansive definition, “Camptothecin”, though has undergone a change, retain the original properties and character of forest produce, Mappia Foetida. No explanation has been given regarding the source of the said raw material of the finished product. According to him, the learned trial Judge has missed the aforesaid position of law. 10. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned Counsel countered the submission of Mr. P. R. Mitra relying on the factual findings of the learned trial Judge that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the aforesaid finished product Camptothecin could not be termed to be a forest produce under any stretch of imagination. 11. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned Counsel countered the submission of Mr. P. R. Mitra relying on the factual findings of the learned trial Judge that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the aforesaid finished product Camptothecin could not be termed to be a forest produce under any stretch of imagination. 11. He has drawn our attention to the flow chart showing emerging of Camptothecin and submits that various processes are adopted for bringing about chemical change from the original raw material Mappia Foetida which is a forest produce. He further submits that Camptothecin being the finished product does not retain original character and properties of the forest produce. He says that the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Suresh Lohiya –vs- State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in (1996) 10 S.C.C. 397 , in a slightly worse case, than present one, held by explaining the said definition of forest produce, that even if origin of the finished product is a forest produce, nonetheless finished product cannot be treated to be so after it has undergone a substantial change in the manufacturing process. 12. We have heard the respective contention of the learned Counsels for the parties and we have examined the impugned judgment and order and the records. We are of the view, on consideration of the flow chart of transformation of Camptothecin that it cannot be said to be a forest produce within the definition of forest produce under the said Act. 13. It would be appropriate to record that this flow chart has not been denied and disputed by the appellant. The flow chart depicts that Mappia Foetida is no doubt used as the raw material. The said raw material is transformed to a finished product with various chemical process, changing other foreign materials in the manner as follows: Mappia Foetida is grounded first with methanol. The extract of methanol with Mappia Foetida is collected. Then the syrup is mixed with chlorinated solvents to make a solution. Thereafter, crude cake is manufactured and/or prepared from this solution. After purification of the crude cake in methanol and chloroform, there is a process of concentration and filtering and then wet Camptothecin is brought about. The wet Camptothecin is dried and then packed. 14. Then the syrup is mixed with chlorinated solvents to make a solution. Thereafter, crude cake is manufactured and/or prepared from this solution. After purification of the crude cake in methanol and chloroform, there is a process of concentration and filtering and then wet Camptothecin is brought about. The wet Camptothecin is dried and then packed. 14. Thus, it is clear that the original forest produce being the raw material has to undergo a chemical change. Science says, when there is a chemical change, the ingredients used in the process lose its character and transformed into a different component altogether, unlike physical changes, e.g. once water is vapourised, until and unless the vapour is cooled, the water remains in gaseous form. But once the cooling process is started, the water can be brought back easily. 15. It is well known, there is a difference between physical change and chemical change. Physical change can be brought about easily and at the same time, the original material can also be brought back easily, but it is not possible in the case of chemical change. 16. Hence, it is an unacceptable argument that Camptothecin retains the original character of Mappia Foetida. According to us, Mappia Foetida is not Camptothecin and it is a raw material. 17. The decision rendered in the case of Forest Range Officer -vs- Khushboo Enterprise (supra), cited by Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, in support of his submission stand on a different fact. In that case, Supreme Court has accepted the definition of forest produce, which is an expansive one. In the said case, sandal wood oil was the subject matter and the sandal wood oil very much comes within the sweep of definition of forest produce. 18. According to us, sandal wood oil is extracted by physical or mechanical method. It is extracted from the forest produce itself which does not undergo any change by impregnating any foreign element and agent and it remains, as it is. The distinguishing feature is, whether it is extracted from the origin without having any change or without adding any foreign element to bring about the change, either mechanical or physical. 19. Similarly, the decision, cited by Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, rendered in the case of State of M.P. –vs- S.P. Sales Agency (supra) is also distinguishable. The distinguishing feature is, whether it is extracted from the origin without having any change or without adding any foreign element to bring about the change, either mechanical or physical. 19. Similarly, the decision, cited by Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, rendered in the case of State of M.P. –vs- S.P. Sales Agency (supra) is also distinguishable. In the case cited the issue was whether the substance Cutch or Kattha is forest produce or not. The manufacturing process of Cutch and Kattha is extracting liquid substance from Khair tree which is a type of acacia tree and while preparing the said Cutch and Kattha, no foreign element is required as Cutch and Kattha is direct finished product from tree itself. Hence, Supreme Court has held that this is a part of the plants and naturally it is a forest produce. 20. On the other hand, the decision cited by Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, rendered in the case of Suresh Lohiya –vs- State of Maharashtra and Anr. (supra), is more apposite to this case, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 has observed as follows : “we may also state that according to us the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Fatesang case is correct, because though bamboo as a whole is forest produce, if a product, commercially new and distinct, known to the business community as totally different is brought into existence by human labour, such an article and product would cease to be a forest produce. The definition of this expression leaves nothing to doubt that it would not take within its fold an article or thing which is totally different from forest-produce having a distinct character.” 21. In the aforesaid case, there was no chemical change of the forest produce unlike the case on hand, to bring about any chemical change; rather it was a physical change. Even then the Supreme Court in that case observed that once there is a change of the substance from the forest produce, either by human labour or otherwise, character and properties of the forest produce ceases. 22. We respectfully follow the aforesaid observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in this case, as we notice factually that Camptothecin is produced through various chemical process and the changes are permanent in character. 23. 22. We respectfully follow the aforesaid observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in this case, as we notice factually that Camptothecin is produced through various chemical process and the changes are permanent in character. 23. In view of the discussion, as above, accepting the fact finding of the learned trial Judge and application of law made by the learned trial Judge, we had hold there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is hereby affirmed. 24. There will be no order as to costs. 25. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the applicants.