2011 (10) TMI 714 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a specified officer empowered under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended by the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003) to compound offences has power, competence and authority, on payment of a sum of money by way of composition of the offence by a person who is suspected to have committed offence against the Act, to order forfeiture of the seized items? - Held that - When the language of the statutory provision is plain and clear no external aid is required and the legislative intention has to be gathered from the language employed. In our view, neither Section 54(2) of the 1972 Act by itself nor Section 54(2) read with Section 39(1)(d) or any other provision of the 1972 Act empowers and authorizes the specified officer under Section 54, on composition of the offence, to deal with the seized property much less order forfeiture of the seized property used by the person suspected of commission of offence 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 question framed at the outset is in the negative.

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of specified officers under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to order forfeiture of seized items.
2. Interpretation of Section 39(1)(d) regarding the forfeiture of property used in committing an offence.
3. The effect of composition of offences under Section 54(2) post-amendment by Act 16 of 2003.
4. The role of the Magistrate under Section 50(4) in dealing with seized property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of Specified Officers under Section 54(1):
The central question was whether a specified officer empowered under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended by the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002, has the power to order forfeiture of seized items upon the composition of an offence. The Supreme Court held that the specified officer does not have such power. The judgment emphasized that the legislative intent must be clear and explicit in conferring such authority, which was not the case here. The deletion of the provision for the release of seized property in the amended Section 54(2) does not implicitly grant the power to order forfeiture.

2. Interpretation of Section 39(1)(d):
Section 39(1)(d) states that any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap, or tool used for committing an offence and seized under the Act shall be the property of the state government. The Court clarified that this provision only applies when there is a categorical finding by a competent court that the seized items were used in committing the offence. Mere suspicion or accusation is insufficient for forfeiture under this section. The Court affirmed that the interpretation of "has been used for committing an offence" requires a legal adjudication by a competent court.

3. Effect of Composition of Offences under Section 54(2):
The composition of an offence under Section 54(2) results in the discharge of the suspected person from custody and prevents further proceedings against them. However, the amended Section 54(2) does not authorize the specified officer to order forfeiture of the seized property. The Court held that the deletion of the provision for the release of seized property does not confer the power of forfeiture by implication. Forfeiture is considered a penalty, and such a power must be explicitly provided by the statute.

4. Role of the Magistrate under Section 50(4):
The Court emphasized that seized property must be dealt with by the Magistrate under Section 50(4) of the Act. The specified officer does not have the authority to order forfeiture upon composition of the offence. The property seized under Section 50(1)(c) must be presented before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to law. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to apply to the concerned Magistrate for the return of the seized items, who will consider the application according to law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that specified officers under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended, do not have the power to order forfeiture of seized items upon the composition of an offence. The Court held that such powers must be explicitly conferred by the statute, and in the absence of such provision, the seized property must be dealt with by a Magistrate as per Section 50(4). The appeal was disposed of with the direction that the Respondents must apply to the Magistrate for the return of the seized items.

← Previous Next →