2004 (12) TMI 667 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether even though there was no specific provision in Section 52 (3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short the Act ) as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 (hereafter referred to as the Bihar Act ), a vehicle seized for alleged involvement in commission of forest offence can be released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990.
2. Legality of releasing a vehicle seized for forest offences on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.
3. Jurisdiction and powers under Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927:
The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the Bihar Act. The High Court had held that despite the absence of a specific provision, the power to impose a fine in lieu of confiscation could be read into the statute to meet the ends of justice. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that statutory interpretation must adhere to the clear language of the statute. The Court stated, "When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences." The Court further noted that adding or substituting words in a statute is against settled principles of statutory interpretation, referencing cases like J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills.

2. Legality of Releasing a Vehicle on Payment of Fine:
The High Court had directed the release of a seized vehicle on payment of a fine, interpreting this as a case of casus omissus. The Supreme Court found this conclusion erroneous, stating that a casus omissus (a gap in the law) should not be readily inferred and must be supplied only in cases of clear necessity. The Court emphasized that "a casus omissus ought not to be created by interpretation, save in some case of strong necessity." The Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in reading into Section 52(3) the power to direct release by imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation.

3. Jurisdiction and Powers under Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927:
The Supreme Court also analyzed Section 68 of the Act, which provides the power to compound offences. This section allows a Forest Officer to release seized property on payment of its value, but only for offences other than those specified in certain sections. The Court noted that the power under Section 68 is discretionary and must be exercised judicially. The High Court had not referred to this section and instead introduced an impermissible concept into Section 52. The Supreme Court clarified that the vehicle could be released on payment of its value as estimated by the officer, but this discretion must be exercised based on the gravity of the offence and after recording reasons.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, declaring it "clearly indefensible." The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to the clear language of the statute and that judicial innovation should not replace legislative intent. The appeal was allowed, reinforcing the principle that courts cannot legislate under the guise of interpretation.