TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence against the Act. The order passed by the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad for forfeiture of the vehicle and two rifles to the state government is de hors the provisions of the 1972 Act and unsustainable. The High Court has rightly set aside such illegal order. However, the Single Judge was not right in his order dated March 29, 2005 in directing the Respondents therein (present Appellants) to release the vehicle and rifles. The Division Bench also erred in maintaining the above direction. Since the items were seized in exercise of the power under Section 50(1)(c), the seized property has to be dealt with by the Magistrate under Section 50(4) of the 1972 Act. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 must accordingly apply to the concerned Magistrate for the return of seized items who obviously will consider such application according to law. We hold, as we must, that a specified officer empowered under Section 54(1) of the 1972 Act as substituted by Act 16 of 2003 to compound offences, has no power, competence or authority to order forfeiture of the seized items on composition of the offence by a person who is suspected to have committed offence against the Act. Our answer to the que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money by way of composition of the offence. 4. On August 10, 2004, the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad on the report submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Medak that the accused persons (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) had offered for compounding the offence and they were willing to pay the money by way of composition of the offence, ordered that the offence be compounded for ₹ 30,000/under Section 54 of the 1972 Act and the vehicle and the weapons used in committing the offence be forfeited. 5. The Respondent No. 1 challenged the above order in appeal before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests although by his order dated October 9, 2004 held that appeal was not maintainable but asked the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad to reduce the composition fee from ₹ 30,000/- to ₹ 25,000/-. The respondent No. 1 was asked by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to approach the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad for further action. 6. The Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad then passed a fresh order on November 4, 2004 permitting the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to compoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Objects and Reasons of Act 16 of 2003 leaves no manner of doubt that one of the objects sought to be achieved by the amendment was to provide that the vehicles, vessel, weapons, tools etc. used in committing compoundable offences are not returned to the offenders. He argued that legislative intent and policy must be given due regard. 13. Learned senior counsel for the Appellants would also contend that compounding of the offences under Section 54 is not during the course of a trial or in the trial of a compoundable offence and, therefore, an order of empowered officer in compounding the offence is not an order of acquittal; it is plain and simple departmental compounding. He urged that the effect of the compounding offences, as provided in Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Code') is not applicable to the compounding of offences under Section 54 of the 1972 Act as amended by Act 16 of 2003. He also referred to two decisions of this Court (i) Sewpujanrai Indrasanrai Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Ors. AIR 1958 SC 845 to draw distinction between the expressions, offender , offence and confiscation and (ii) Biswabahan Das ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Madhukar Rao S/o. Malik Rao v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2000 (1) MPLJ 289 and the judgment of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Madhukar Rao (2008) 14 SCC 624 affirming the Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court. He also relied upon decisions of this Court in A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration (1973) 1 SCC 726; State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee F. Desai and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 318; Prakash Kumar alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409; Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 653 and Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited v. Nimesh B. Thakore (2010) 3 SCC 83 17. Mr. R. Sundervardhan, learned senior counsel, in rejoinder, distinguished the decision of this Court in the case of Madhukar Rao (2008) 14 SCC 624. He submitted that the issue in Madhukar Rao (2008) 14 SCC 624 and the issue raised in the present appeal are distinct and even on facts the case of Madhukar Rao (2008) 14 SCC 624 is distinguishable. He submitted that Section 54 of the 1972 Act as amended by Act 16 of 2003 was not under consideration in Madhukar Rao (2008) 14 SCC 624. 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant or part or derivative thereof in his control, custody or possession, or any licence, permit or other document granted to him or required to be kept by him under the provisions of this Act; (b) stop any vehicle or vessel in order to conduct search or inquiry or enter upon and search any premises, land, vehicle or vessel, in the occupation of such person, and open and search any baggage or other things in his possession; (c) seize any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy or uncured trophy, or any specified plant or part or derivative thereof, in respect of which an offence against this Act appears to have been committed, in the possession of any person together with any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon used for committing any such offence and, unless he is satisfied that such person will appear and answer any charge which may be preferred against him, arrest him without warrant, and detain him: (2).... (3) It shall be lawful for any of the officers referred to in Sub-section (1) to stop and detain any person, whom he sees doing any act for which a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State Government may, by notification, empower the Chief Wild Life Warden or any officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Deputy Conservator of Forests,- (a) to accept, from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed an offence against this Act, payment of a sum of money by way of composition of the offence which such person is suspected to have committed; and (b) when any property has been seized as liable to be forfeited, to release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer. (2) On payment of such sum of money or such value, or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged, and the property, other than Government property, if any, seized, shall be released and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person. (3) The officer compounding any offence may order the cancellation of any licence or permit granted under this Act to the offender, or if not empowered to do so, may approach an officer so empowered, for the cancellation of such licence or permit. (4) The sum of money accepted or agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch property after such person and before the present holder, is or was transferee in good faith for adequate consideration. 26. The Statement of Objects and Reasons (Act 16 of 2003) annexed with Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2002, in Clause (xvi), proposed, to provide that the vehicles, weapons and tools, etc. used in committing compoundable offences are not to be returned to the offenders . 27. In the backdrop of the above scheme of law, we have to consider the correctness of the view of the High Court and the question of law raised in the appeal. 28. One thing is clear that the statutory provisions noticed above do not in explicit terms provide for the forfeiture of the seized items by the departmental authorities from a person who is suspected to have committed offence/s against the 1972 Act. Chapter VI-A which has been inserted in the 1972 Act by Act 16 of 2003 that provides for forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade is entirely different provision and has nothing to do with forfeiture of the property seized from a person accused of commission of offence against the 1972 Act. Insofar as Section 39(1)(d) of the 1972 Act is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... divestiture of specific property without compensation in consequence of some default or act forbidden by law. The word 'forfeit' is defined in Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Tenth Edition): 'lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing'. In R.S. Joshi etc. v. Ajit Mills Ltd and Anr. AIR 1977 SC 2279, this Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., with reference to expression 'forfeiture' occurring in Section 37(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, said, this word 'forfeiture' must bears the same meaning of a penalty for breach of a prohibitory direction . While construing the word 'forfeiture' with reference to Sections 431 and 432 of the Bengal Municipal Act (15 of 1932), this Court stated in the case of The Chairman of the Bankura Municipality v. Lalji Raja and Sons AIR 1953 SC 248 that unless the loss or deprivation of the goods is by way of a penalty or punishment for a crime, offence or breach of engagement, it would not come within the definition of forfeiture. However, in light of the provisions under consideration, the Court held that forfeiture of property was not one of the penalties or punish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court extensively considered the statutory provisions and approved the view of the Full Bench of the High Court that deletion of Sub-section (2) and its replacement by Sub-section (3)(A) in Section 50 of the 1972 Act had no effect on the powers of the Court to release the seized vehicle during the pendency of trial under the provisions of the Code. While dealing with Section 39(1)(d), this Court also approved the view of the Full Bench of the High Court that Section 39(1)(d) would come into play only after a court of competent jurisdiction found that accusation and allegations made against the accused were true and recorded the finding that the seized article was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence. This Court said: ...Any attempt to operationalise Section 39(1)(d) of the Act merely on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations levelled by the departmental authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provisions and would render it unconstitutional and invalid.... 32. We are in complete agreement with the view of this Court in Madhukar Rao that on the basis of seizure and mere accusations/allegations, Section 39(1)(d) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot remove the suspicion of having committed the offence unless he is to have such benefit conferred on him by some provision of law. In effect the payment of compensation amounts to his acceptance of the truth of the charge against him. Sub-section (2) of s. 62 only protects him with regard to further proceedings, but has not the effect of clearing his character or vindicating his conduct. 36. There may be myriad reasons, for a person, suspected of commission of offence, to apply for composition of the offence. What is important is not the reason for composition of offence but the effect of composition. The effect of composition of offence has to be found in the statute itself. Section 54(2) provides that on payment of money to the empowered officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person. In terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 54, therefore, on composition of the offence, the suspected person is saved from criminal prosecution, and from being subjected to further proceedings in respect of the offence. 37. Section 54(2) of the 1972 Act, prior to the amendment by A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money to such officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person' does not show that the Legislature intended to empower the specified officer under Section 54 to forfeit the seized property used by the suspected person in commission of offence against the Act. There is no replacement of the deleted words by any express provision. Section 54 substituted by Act 16 of 2003 does not speak of seized property at all - neither its return nor its forfeiture - while providing for composition of offence. The property seized under Section 50(1)(c) and Section 50(3A) has to be dealt with by the Magistrate according to law. This is made clear by Section 50(4) which provides that things seized shall be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to law. Section 54 substituted by Act 16 of 2003 does not empower the specified officer to deal with the seized property. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that a comparative reading of pre-amended Section 54(2) and Section 54(2) as substituted by Act 16 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
