9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1944 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking the release of a tractor and trolley seized - illegal excavation of sand from the Chambal river - submission is that the confiscation proceedings have been initiated in terms of Section 52(3) and hence the procedure is governed by Sections 52 and 52-A - HELD THAT - The specific provisions have been made for the seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools boats vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences. Upon a seizure Under Section 52(1) the officer effecting the seizure has to either produce the property before the Authorised Officer or to make a report of the seizure Under Sub-section (2) of Section 52. Upon being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed the Authorised Officer is empowered for reasons to be recorded to confiscate the forest produce together with the tools vehicles boats and articles used in its commission. Before confiscating any property Under Sub-section (3) the Authorised Officer is required to send an intimation of the initiation of the proceedings for the confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. The order of confiscation Under Section 52(3) is subject to an appeal Under Section 52-A and a revision Under Section 52-B. Sub-section (5) of Section 52-B imparts finality to the order of the Court of Sessions in revision notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the Code of Criminal Procedure and provides that it shall not be called into question before any court. Section 52-C stipulates that on the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate Under Sub-section (4) of Section 52 no court tribunal or authority other than an Authorised Officer an Appellate Authority or Court of Sessions (Under Sections 52 52A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to possession delivery disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated. Upon the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings Under Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52 the bar of jurisdiction Under Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted. The scheme contained in the amendments enacted to the Indian Forest Act 1927 in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh makes it abundantly clear that the direction which was issued by the High Court in the present case in a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle which had been seized was contrary to law. The jurisdiction Under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not available to the Magistrate once the Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings. The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Indian Forest Act 1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose. Protection of forests against depredation is a constitutionally mandated goal exemplified by Article 48A19 of the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A(g)20. By isolating the confiscation of forest produce and the instruments utilised for the commission of an offence from criminal trials the legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent. The absence of effective deterrence was considered by the Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal regime - As an effective tool for protecting and preserving environment these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation. For it is only when the interpretation of law keeps pace with the object of the Legislature that the grave evils which pose a danger to our natural environment can be suppressed. The avarice of humankind through the ages has resulted in an alarming depletion of the natural environment. The consequences of climate change are bearing down on every day of our existence. Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to the daily assaults on the environment. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by MP Act 25 of 1983. 3. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation. 4. Parallel proceedings for confiscation and criminal prosecution. 5. Applicability of precedents and case law. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The primary issue was whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to order the interim release of a seized vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when confiscation proceedings had been initiated under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The State of Madhya Pradesh contended that the High Court erred in directing the Magistrate to release the vehicle, as the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 451 CrPC was excluded once confiscation proceedings commenced. 2. Confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by MP Act 25 of 1983: The confiscation proceedings were governed by Sections 52 and 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by MP Act 25 of 1983. Section 52(3) empowers the Authorised Officer to confiscate forest produce and tools, vehicles, boats, etc., used in committing the offence. Section 52-A provides an appellate remedy, and Section 52-B allows for revision before the Court of Sessions. Section 52-C bars the jurisdiction of courts, tribunals, and authorities other than the Authorised Officer, Appellate Authority, and Court of Sessions once confiscation proceedings are initiated. 3. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation: The legislative intent behind the amendments was to provide a stringent mechanism for the protection of forests and to act as a deterrent against forest offences. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of the provisions to align with the objectives of the legislation and the constitutional mandate under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) to protect and improve the environment. 4. Parallel proceedings for confiscation and criminal prosecution: The judgment highlighted that confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecution are distinct and parallel processes, each serving different purposes. Confiscation aims at the immediate and effective deterrence of forest offences, while criminal prosecution seeks to punish the offender. The Court noted that the initiation of confiscation proceedings excludes the jurisdiction of the criminal court to deal with the seized property. 5. Applicability of precedents and case law: The Court referred to various precedents, including GV Sudhakar Rao, KA Kunchindammed, Sujit Kumar Rana, and Kallo Bai, which supported the view that once confiscation proceedings are initiated, the jurisdiction of the criminal court is excluded. The decision in State of MP v. Madhukar Rao was distinguished on the grounds that it dealt with the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, which did not have provisions analogous to the MP amendments to the Forest Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that the jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate once confiscation proceedings were initiated by the Authorised Officer. The amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, by MP Act 25 of 1983, were intended to provide an effective deterrent against forest offences and must be interpreted to fulfill this legislative intent. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting forests as a national wealth and the need for statutory interpretation to align with environmental protection goals.
|
