2004 (1) TMI 684 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether once a confiscation proceeding is initiated the jurisdiction of the criminal court in terms of Section 59-G of Indian Forest Act, 1927 being barred, the High Court also cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for interim release of the property. The High Court can exercise such a power only in exercise of its power of judicial review?

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in releasing seized vehicles during confiscation proceedings.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions related to forest-produce confiscation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The primary issue was whether Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) could be invoked to quash confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the State of West Bengal. The court noted that the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, particularly Sections 59-A to 59-G, constitute a complete code for the confiscation process, which includes initiation, appeal, and ouster of jurisdiction of other courts. The court emphasized that the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are limited to preventing abuse of process or securing the ends of justice in matters pending before a criminal court. Since the confiscation proceedings are independent and administrative in nature, initiated under the Forest Act and not under the CrPC, Section 482 could not be invoked to interfere with these proceedings.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Releasing Seized Vehicles:
The court examined whether the High Court could order the interim release of vehicles seized under the Forest Act during pending confiscation proceedings. The judgment highlighted that once a confiscation proceeding is initiated, the jurisdiction of the criminal court is barred under Section 59-G of the Indian Forest Act. The court referred to precedents, including *Divisional Forest Officer v. G. V. Sudhakar Rao* and *State of West Bengal v. Gopal Sarkar*, to affirm that the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to release the vehicles. The court further clarified that the power to deal with the seized property lies exclusively with the authorized officer under the Forest Act, and the High Court can only intervene through judicial review, not under Section 482 CrPC.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions Related to Forest-Produce Confiscation:
The judgment provided a detailed interpretation of various provisions of the Indian Forest Act, particularly those introduced by the West Bengal amendments. It was noted that the Act provides a comprehensive framework for the confiscation of forest-produce and vehicles used in committing forest offences. The court emphasized the importance of these provisions in preserving national wealth and ecological balance, and stressed that statutes aimed at protecting forests should be liberally construed to achieve their objectives. The court also discussed the procedural safeguards in place to prevent arbitrary exercise of power, such as the requirement for notice and opportunity to be heard before confiscation.

The court concluded that the High Court's order releasing the vehicles was beyond its jurisdiction and set aside the impugned judgment. It was reiterated that valid confiscation proceedings must be initiated with proper notice and conducted in accordance with the statutory framework.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside, reaffirming that the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to interfere with confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act. The parties were left free to raise permissible objections in the confiscation proceedings.

← Previous Next →