http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SWAROPCHANDRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court made on 31st March, 1983 in Misc. Petition No.203 of 1983.      The admitted  facts are  that since  the truck  bearing No.9493 was  found carrying  22 logs of timber on October 4, 1983 without  permit, it  was seized on the said date by the Divisional Forest  Officer under  the M.P.  Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam,  1969, No.9  of 1969  (for short,  the ’Act’). On  October 5,  1983, a  notice was  issued  to  the driver of  the truck  whether he  was willing  to  have  the offence compounded. The truck was valued at Rs.70,000/-. The driver consented  to the compounding of the offence and paid a  sum  of  Rs.  1,000/-.  After  following  the  prescribed procedure, by  impugned order,  the truck was confiscated as the value  thereof was  not paid.  The respondent challenged the power  of seizure  in the  writ proceedings  in the High Court. The  High Court held that the Act did not provide the power of confiscation of the truck under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act.  By operation of Section 22 of the Act, the Central Forest Act,  1927 as amended by the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 (for  short, the ’Forest Act’) is not applicable to the confiscation of the truck. The Divisional Forest Officer had not produced  the truck before the criminal court nor did he lay  any  charge-sheet  for  prosecution  of  the  offender. Therefore, the  order of  confiscation was without authority of Law.  Accordingly a  direction was  given to  release the vehicle. Pending appeal in this Court, interim direction was given to release the vehicle to the respondent on furnishing security for a sum of Rs.25,000/-.      The question,  therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High  Court is  correct in  law? It  is contended by Mr. Sakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State, that Section 15 provides for the seizure. Section 19 gives power to compound the  offence  including  payment  of  the  compensation  for release of  the vehicle seized and confiscation of specified forest produce.  Section  22  excludes  only  the  specified forest produce.  Section 52  of the Forest Act read with the State Amendment  Act 9  of 1965 gives power for confiscation of the  vehicle or receptacle used for transportation of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

forest produce  which includes the specified forest produce. Therefore, there is no necessity to expressly provide in the Act, the  power for confiscation in Section 19 of the Act of the   vehicle,   tools   or   receptacle   etc.   used   for transportation of  the specified  forest produce. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law.      Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other  hand, contended  that the  Act has  occupied  the field in  respect of  specified forest produce with power of seizure, power  to levy  peanlty or  collect compensation in lieu of  prosecution, power  to  prosecute  either  for  the forest offence  or confiscate  the  forest  produce.  Having specified  the   detailed  procedure   and  identified   the specified  forest   produce  alone  to  be  confiscated,  by necessary implication,  the Legislature intended not to take any action for confiscation of the vehicle, cart, receptacle or tools  etc. used  for  offence  of  transport  of  forest produce. Unless it is an offence of forest produce under the Forest Act,  Sections 52  to 55  of the  Forest Act  have no application to the facts. Thereby, there is no express power given by  the Legislature  to the  officer to confiscate the vehicle used  for the transportation of the specified forest producc. Thus  considered, the  High Court was clearly right in directing the release of the vehicle.      With a  view to  appreciate the respective contentions, it is  necessary to  look into the relevant provisions under the Act. Section 2(d) defines "Forest Produce". Section 2(k) defines "specified  area". Section  2(1) defines  "Specified forest producer". Section 5 imposes restrictions on purchase or  transport     of  specified  forest  produce  except  in accordance with  the permit  issued under  the Act  and  the rules made thereunder. Section 15 deals with power of entry, search, seizure  of the  forest produce  given to the Forest Officer or  vehicles used  for the  transport to satisfy the compliance of  the Act or rules used in contravention of the provisions of  the Act or the rules made thereunder so as to ensure compliance  of the provisions of the Act. The details thereof are  not necessary  for the purpose of the case. But Section 15(1)(iii) gives power to seize the specified forest produce in respect of which the officer suspects that any of the provisions  of the  Act or  rules made  thereunder  have been, are  being or  are about to be contravened, along with the receptacle  or vehicle  containing such  produce, or the vehicle or  boats, carts etc. used in carrying such produce. The provisions  of Sections  102 and  103  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure,  1898 (for  short, the  ’Repealed Code’) are pari materia with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  would  apply  for  such  seizure  as  well. Section 19(1)(b) provides that when the property, other than a specified  forest produce,  has been  seized is  liable to confiscation, to  release the  same on payment of the  value thereof as  estimated by  such officer. The State Government may, by  notification empower  a Forest  Officer. Under sub- section [2]  of Section 19, on payment of such sum or money, or such  value or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected  persons shall be discharged, and the property other than  the specified  forest produce,  if any,  seized, shall be  released and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. Resultantly, if a suspected person pays compensation of the value of the property seized other than  specified forest  produce  the  same  should  be released and  no  further  prosecution  would  lie  and  the proceedings would  be closed.  The  receptacle  or  vehicle, boats or  carts etc.  used for the carriage of the specified forest produce  when seized, the necessary consequence would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

be, the  same procedure  would be  followed for non-payment. What provision  of law  would be  applied is  the  question? Section 22  of the  Act, prior to the Amendment Acts 15/1987 and 16/1990, reads as under:      "Nothing contained  in  the  Indian      Forest Act,  1927 (No.16  of  1927)      shall  apply  to  specified  forest      produce in  respect of  matters for      which provisions  are contained  in      this."      In other  words, if  there  is  a  specified  procedure provided in  the Act  in respect  of  the  specified  forest produce, by operation of the provisions of Section 22 of the Forest Act, the provisions of Forest Act stand excluded. The question is  whether the  content,  i.e.,  specified  forest produce, is  liable to  confiscation and  when on payment of value  of   vehicle  etc.   it  is  liable  to  release  and proceedings closed, whether on non-payment in respect of the container  i.e.   vehicle  used   in  contravention  of  the provisions of the Act or rules and seized by the officer, is liable to  confiscation under  the provisions  of the Forest Act or  to be released? There is no provision for release of the vehicle  by the  officer except  on payment of the value thereof. It  is seen  that when the Act was made with a view to prevent  illicit transportation  of the forest produce or the specified  forest produce  and seizure  and confiscation have  been   provided  for,   could  it  be  said  that  the Legislature intended  to exclude  the  confiscation  of  the container, i.e.,  vehicle of  receptacles or boats, carts or tools used  for carriage  of the  specified forest  produce, i.e., content,  in contravention  of the  provisions of  the Act? The answer is obviously no.      In our  view, the  High Court  was clearly  in error in reaching the  conclusion that  there is  no  such  provision under the  Forest Act.  It is seen that the Act occupies the field  in   respect  of  the  specified  matters  enumerated thereunder. In  view cf  the fact  that the  Forest Act,  as amended under  the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 has already occupied the field for confiscation of the vehicles etc., it is not  necessary, again to provide the same procedure under the Act.  In this  behalf, it  is relevant  to look into the procedure provided  in the  Amendment Act 9 of 1965. Section 52  deals  with  the  seizure  of  the  property  liable  to confiscation and  procedure thereunder.  Section 52-A  deals with the appeal against orders of confiscation. Section 52-B deals with  revision before  Court of Sessions against order of appellate authority. Section 53 gives power to the Forest Officer  to   release  the  seized  property  under  certain circumstances enumerated  thereunder. Thus, it could be seen that Sections  52 and 52A, as amended by the State Amendment Act 9  of 1965  having occupied  the field in respect of the confiscation of  vehicles etc.  and the procedure thereunder the Legislature  had not  expressly provided  such procedure again for  confiscation  under  the  Act.  The  High  Court, therefore, was  clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that by operation of Section 22 of the Act, the vehicle used for  transportation  of  the  specified  forest  produce  in contravention of  the Act  has excluded the applicability of the provisions  of the  Forest Act,  as amended  by Act 9 of 1965 in  respect of  vehicles etc.  It was  confined only to specified forest produce.      The order of the High Court stands set aside.      The release  order will  be subject to the respondent’s paying the  balance amount,  after deducting the sum already secured.  The  sum  of  Rs.25,800/-  be  realised  from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

security. The  balance sum  will be  paid within a period of six months  from today.  If he  does not  pay the amount, it would be  open to  the appellant  to seize  the vehicle,  if available or proceed against any other property or person of the respondent.