9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing checked by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kulcharam Police Station, District Medak. In the course of the checking, at 2.45 a.m. a jeep bearing Registration No. AP - 12 - D 703 was also stopped and checked. The said jeep was occupied by the present Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and two other persons. On checking, the Sub-Inspector of Police found one gunny bag tied to the front side of the bumper of the jeep. The gunny bag had two bags inside; one bag contained a hunted wild boar and the other had three rabbits. The seizure panchnama was prepared immediately at 3.30 a.m. The jeep, a battery, a torchlight, dead animals and two rifles of foreign make fitted with telescope were seized. The persons (including Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who were occupying the jeep) were taken into custody and a case (Crime No. 43 of 2004) was registered against them under Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the 1972 Act'). The Division Forest Officer, Medak was also immediately informed. 3. On July 25, 2004 itself, the Divisional Forest Officer, Medak recorded the statement of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and two other persons. They gave some explanation with regard to the gunny ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Single Judge. This is how the present appeal has reached this Court. 10. We heard Mr. R. Sundervardhan, learned senior counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 11. Mr. R. Sundervardhan, learned senior counsel for the appellants invited our attention to Section 54 of the 1972 Act, particularly Sub-section (2) thereof prior to its amendment by Act 16 of 2003 and the amended Section T(2) whereby the portion, "the property other than Government property, if any, seized, shall be released" has been omitted and submitted that the legislative intent was clear that release of seized items was not permissible and it was competent for the specified officer empowered to compound offences to order forfeiture of the seized items to the state government. In this regard, learned senior counsel also referred to Section 39(1)(d) of the 1972 Act and submitted that the property seized from a person accused of commission of an offence against the 1972 Act, irrespective of the fact that offence has been compounded, stands forfeited and the property becomes the property of the state government or central government, as the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but also lead to vesting of unguided, arbitrary or unconstitutional power in the hands of the empowered officer. 15. Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 argued that the plain language of Section 39(1)(d) does not give sanction to an officer empowered under Section 54 of the 1972 Act to forfeit seized items under the provisions of the Act on composition of offence. He submitted that the expression used in Section 39(1)(d) is, ".... that has been used for committing an offence .... " and not, ".... is suspected to have been used for committing an offence...." 16. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also referred to Section 50, Section 51(2) and Section 53 of the 1972 Act and submitted that if the interpretation canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the Appellants is accepted, that would render Section 50(4), Section 51(2) and Section 53 superfluous. He argued that even in cases of casus omissus, the court should not supply any words which are found to be missing in the enactment. The Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be read to supplement or supplant a statutory provision much less a source of power and in any event, the penal provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this Act, shall be the property of the State Government, and, where such animal is hunted in a sanctuary or National Park declared by the Central Government, such animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting shall be the property of the Central Government. (2), (3) (a), (b), (c) xxxx 21. Chapter VI deals with the prevention and detection of offences. Section 50 after its amendment by Act 44 of 1991 and Act 16 of 2003 to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows: Section 50. Power of entry, search, arrest and detention.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf or the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any Forest Officer or any Police Officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act,- (a) require any such person to produce for inspection any captive animal, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 1972 Act. This Section too has undergone changes in 1986, 1991 and 2003. Section 51 has also been amended subsequently by Act 39 of 2006 but that is not relevant for our purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 51 reads as under: Section 51. Penalties.- (1), (1A), (1B) xxxx (2) When any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the court trying the offence may order that any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, meat, ivory imported into India or an article made from such ivory, any specified plant, or part or derivative thereof in respect of which the offence has been committed, and any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon, used in the commission of the said offence be forfeited to the State Government and that any licence or permit, held by such person under the provisions of this Act, be cancelled. (3), (4), (5) xxxx 23. Section 54, prior to amendment by Act 16 of 2003, read as under: Section 54. Power to compound offences.-(1) The Central Government may, by notification, empower the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer and the State Government may, by notification, empower the Chief Wild Life Warden or any officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to do so, may approach an officer so empowered, for the cancellation of such licence or permit. (4) The sum of money accepted or agreed to be accepted as composition under Sub-section (1) shall, in no case, exceed the sum of twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that no offence, for which a minimum period of imprisonment has been prescribed in Section 51, shall be compounded. 25. Chapter VI-A has been inserted in the 1972 Act by Act 16 of 2003. This chapter makes provision for forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade. The applicability of Chapter VI-A is provided in Section 58A. This Chapter is, accordingly, applicable to (a) every person who has been convicted of an offence punishable under the Act with imprisonment for a term of three years or more; (b) every associate of a person referred to in Clause (a) and (c) any holder of any property which was at any time held by a person referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) unless the present holder or, as the case may be, anyone who held such property after such person and before the present holder, is or was transferee in good faith for adequate consideration. 26. The Statement of Objects and Reasons (Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that if the construction put upon Section 39 (1) (d) by Mr. R. Sundervardhan is accepted, the expression 'has been used for committing an offence' occurring therein has to be read as, 'is suspected to have been used for committing an offence'. In our view, this cannot be done. 29. Section 51(2) of the 1972 Act provides for forfeiture of the property on conviction; it says, inter-alia, that when any person is convicted of an offence against the Act, the court trying the offence may order that any captive animal, wild animal, etc. in respect of which the offence has been committed and any vehicle, vessel or weapon etc. used in the commission of the said offence be forfeited to the state government. 30. 'Forfeiture' and 'seizure' have different meaning and connotation in law. In 'The Law Lexicon' by P. Ramanatha Aiyer (2nd edition (Reprint 2000)), 'forfeiture' is defined as the divestiture of specific property without compensation in consequence of some default or act forbidden by law. The word 'forfeit' is defined in Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Tenth Edition): ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court from a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The question before the Full Bench was whether as a result of deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 50 withdrawing power of interim release, there existed any power with the authorities under the 1972 Act or the Code to release the vehicle used in the course of alleged commission of offence under the Act. The Full Bench of the High Court held that any property including vehicle seized on accusation or suspicion of commission of offence under the 1972 Act can be released by the Magistrate pending trial in accordance with Section 50(4) read with Section 451 of the Code. The Full Bench also held that mere seizure of any property including vehicle on the charge of commission of offence would not make the property to be of the State Government under Section 39(1)(d) of the 1972 Act. Against the decision of the Full Bench, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred special leave petition in which leave was granted. This Court extensively considered the statutory provisions and approved the view of the Full Bench of the High Court that deletion of Sub-section (2) and its replacement by Sub-section (3)(A) in Section 50 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision for composition of forest offence under Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 - a provision quite similar to Section 54 of the 1972 Act prior to amendment by Act 16 of 2003. This Court said: ...It must be borne in mind that although the marginal note to Section 62 of the Assam Regulation is "power to compound offences" the word "compounding" is not used in Sub-section (1) Clause (a) of that section. That provision only empowers a forest officer to accept compensation for a forest offence from a person suspected of having committed it. The person so suspected can avoid being proceeded with for the offence by rendering compensation. He may think that he was being unjustly suspected of an offence and he ought to defend himself or he may consider it prudent on his part to pay such compensation in order to avoid the harassment of a prosecution even when he is of the view that he had not committed the offence. By adopting the latter course he does not remove the suspicion of having committed the offence unless he is to have such benefit conferred on him by some provision of law. In effect the payment of compensation amounts to his acceptance of the truth of the charge against him. Sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an it control the actual words used. It has been reiterated by this Court time and again that the reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is for understanding the enactment and the purpose is to ascertain the conditions prevailing at the time the Bill was introduced and the objects sought to be achieved by the proposed amendment; the Statement of Objects and Reasons is not ordinarily used to determine the true meaning of the substantive provisions of the statute. As an aid to the construction of a statute, the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill, ordinarily must be avoided. 39. It is true that by Act 16 of 2003, the Parliament has consciously deleted from Section 54 the provision concerning release of seized property liable to be forfeited on payment of value of such property but the plain language that is retained in Section 54(2) after amendment which reads, 'on payment of such sum of money to such officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person' does not show that the Legislature intended to empower the specified officer under Section 54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
