9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 10.4.1997 at Barkagaon Protected Forest Area, a truck bearing No. BR 13-9041 was found loaded with 11.8 tonnes of coal. Confiscation Proceeding No.3/1997 arising out of Pelawal case No.28/97 was instituted and show cause notice was issued. The respondent filed reply to the notice. After considering the same the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh directed confiscation of the truck. An appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, numbered as Case No.40/1997. By order dated 17.7.1999 the appeal was dismissed. The matter was carried in revision by the respondent before the Revisional Authority cum Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment and by order dated 3.12.2002 the revisional authority dismissed the revision. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') was filed before the High Court. It was the primary stand therein that there was no prohibition in directing release of the vehicle on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. The High Court held that there was some dispute regarding weight of coal which was being carried. It was noted that the value of the coal was not established and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. (2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of the Divisional Forest Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer) or where it is, having regard to quantity of bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce the property seized before the authorized officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made: Provided that, when the forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government, and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his immediate superior. (3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorized officer upon p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the power to levy fine in lieu of confiscation is not there, same has to be read into the statute to fully effectuate the legislative intent. It was a case of casus omissus. The conclusion is clearly erroneous. It is against the settled principles relating to statutory interpretation. When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. [See J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan (2003 (5) SCC 134] As a consequence, as construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As was noted by the Privy Council in Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 6 Moore PC1: We cannot aid the Legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend and, by construction make up deficiencies which are left there . The view was reiterated by this Court in State of Madhya Prades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a law-maker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed or erased. This can be vouchsafed by an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do so . (See: Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in Essays on Jurisprudence , Columbia Law Review, P.51.) It is true that this Court in interpreting the Constitution enjoys a freedom which is not available in interpreting a statute and, therefore, it will be useful at this stage to reproduce what Lord Diplock said in Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs (1980 (1) ALL ER 529, at p. 542): It endangers continued public confidence in the political impartiality of the judiciary, which is essential to the continuance of the rule of law, if Judges, under the guise of interpretation, provide their own preferred amendments to statutes which experience of their operation has shown to have had consequences that members of the court before whom the matter comes consider to be injurious to public interest. Where, therefore, the language ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the Legislature. An intention to produce an unreasonable result , said Danackwerts, L.J. in Artemiou v. Procopiou (1966 1 QB 878), is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available . Where to apply words literally would defeat the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a wholly unreasonable result we must do some violence to the words and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a rational construction. (Per Lord Reid in Luke v. IRC (1966 AC 557) where at p. 577 he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be released, and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. (3) A Forest-officer shall not be empowered under this section unless he is a Forest-officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger and is in receipt of a monthly salary amounting to at least one hundred rupees, and the sum of money accepted as compensation under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall in no case exceed the sum of fifty rupees. The said section was also amended by the State amendment. The amended provision reads as follows: Section 68- Power to compound offences: (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, empower a Forest Officer- (a) to accept from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed any forest offence, other than an offence specified in clauses (c) and (d) to Section 26, clauses (c) and (d) to Section 33 or Section 62 or Section 63, sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which such person is suspected to have committed, and (b) when any property has been seized as liable to confiscation, to release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer. (2) On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
