2017 (5) TMI 1820 - SC - Indian Laws

Release the confiscated vehicle during the pendency of the main criminal case - whether confiscatory proceedings are independent of the main criminal proceedings or not - Confiscation permissible unless the guilt of the Accused is completely established? - HELD THAT - It is apparent that Section 15 gives independent power to the concerned authority to confiscate the articles even before the guilt is completely established. This power can be exercised by the concerned officer if he is satisfied that the said objects were utilized during the commission of a forest offence. A protection is provided for the owners of the vehicles/articles if they are able to prove that they took all reasonable care and precautions as envisaged under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam and the said offence was committed without their knowledge or connivance. Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are different and parallel each having a distinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceeding is to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing the offence while the object of the prosecution is to punish the offender. The scheme Adhiniyam prescribes an independent procedure for confiscation. The intention of prescribing separate proceedings is to provide a deterrent mechanism and to stop further misuse of the vehicle. The confiscatory proceedings are independent of the main criminal proceedings - High Court as well as the revisional court erred in coming to a conclusion that the confiscation under the law was not permissible unless the guilt of the Accused is completely established. Judgement of High Court set aside - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the confiscation of the vehicle and teak wood.
2. Distinction between criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings.
3. Interpretation and application of Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969.
4. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in cases of seizure under the Adhiniyam.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Confiscation of the Vehicle and Teak Wood:
The case concerns the confiscation of a tractor and trolley used to transport teak wood without the necessary documentation. The confiscation was ordered by the Authorized Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, who found that the vehicle operator and his companion deliberately transported the teak wood illegally, with the owner's knowledge. The Appellate Authority and the lower courts upheld the confiscation. However, the additional sessions judge quashed the confiscation, stating that unless the guilt of the accused is proved, there cannot be any confiscation of the vehicle and forest produce. This interpretation was challenged by the State, leading to the present appeal.

2. Distinction between Criminal Prosecution and Confiscation Proceedings:
The judgment clarifies that confiscation proceedings under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam are quasi-judicial and independent of criminal prosecution. Confiscation is based on the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer regarding the commission of a forest offence, and it does not depend on the outcome of the criminal trial. This distinction is crucial as it allows for the immediate confiscation of property used in forest offences, serving as a deterrent against illegal activities.

3. Interpretation and Application of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam:
Section 15 of the Adhiniyam empowers forest officers to seize and confiscate property used in forest offences. The provision outlines the procedure for search, seizure, and confiscation, including the requirement for a written order with recorded reasons. The judgment emphasizes that the power of confiscation is independent and can be exercised before the guilt of the accused is established in a criminal court. The provision also allows for the release of seized property on security, provided the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance in the offence.

4. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in Cases of Seizure under the Adhiniyam:
The judgment highlights that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is ousted in matters of interim custody or release of seized property when confiscation proceedings are initiated under the Adhiniyam. This ensures that the confiscation process is not undermined by parallel proceedings in criminal courts. The Adhiniyam provides a comprehensive framework for handling forest offences, with specific roles for forest officers and limited intervention by criminal courts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court and the revisional court erred in holding that confiscation was not permissible without establishing the guilt of the accused. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside, reinforcing the independent nature of confiscation proceedings under the Adhiniyam. The decision underscores the importance of immediate and effective action against forest offences to preserve biodiversity and prevent misuse of vehicles and other tools in illegal activities.

← Previous Next →