9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2012. 7. The Respondent having been unsatisfied with the order dated 6-11-2012 preferred revision before the additional sessions judge, Seoni, Under Section 15-B of the Adhiniyam. The additional sessions judge, Seoni, by judgment dated 18.07.2013, allowed the revision and quashed the order of confiscation and directed to release the vehicle. Moreover the court was of the view that unless the guilt of the Accused is proved, there cannot be any confiscation of the vehicle and the forest produce. The reasoning of the first revisional court is extracted as under: 14. As such, the order of Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Officer dated 09.04.2012 and order of Appellate Authority and Designated Conservator of Forests dated 06.12.2012 in Appeal No. 7/2012 are violation of Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also Adhiniyam, 1969. The Sub Divisional Forest officer lakhnadone and Appellate Authority without holding Accused guilty in criminal case No. 269/2012 had no right to confiscate the vehicle and forest produce. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The State challenged the aforesaid order of the additional sessions judge, Seoni, dated 18.07.2013, by filing a petition Under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iyam is the definition clause. Under Sub-clause (d) of Section 2 various forest produce have been elucidated. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam empowers State Government to divide forest area into units for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 4 of the Adhiniyam states that the State Government may appoint requisite number of agents to trade in specific forest produce. Further, Section 5 creates bar on individuals other than the State Government or authorized officers of the State Government or an agent appointed Under Section 4, to purchase or transport such specified forest produce in such area with certain exceptions as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 5. Furthermore, Section 7, 8 and 9 of the Adhiniyam allows the State Government to fix prices, prescribe procedures for opening depots, publication of price lists etc. at the depot. 14. Section 10 and 11 of the Adhiniyam prescribes registration of growers, manufacturers, traders and consumers of specified forest produce respectively. Section 12 vests discretionary powers upon the State Government to dispose of specified forest produce. Section 12-A provides for re-sale of excess specified forest produce by manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment and the offender is unknown it shall be sufficient if the officer make as soon as may be a report of the circumstances to his official superior. (3A) Any forest officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger, who or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, claims or any other Article as liable for confiscation, may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof, of a security in a form as may the prescribed, of an amount equal to double the value of such property, as estimated by such officer, of the production of the property so released, when so required, before the officer authorized order the confiscation or the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. (4) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (6), where the authorized officer upon production before him of the specified forest produce or upon receipt of report about the seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate the specified forest produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles, boats ropes, chains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to search and seizures shall so far as may be apply to searches and seizures and seizures under this section. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 empowers concerned forest officers to conduct search to secure compliance of the provisions of the Adhiniyam. On a plain reading of Sub-section (2), it is clear that the concerned officer may seize vehicles, ropes etc, if he has reason to believe that the said items were used for the commission of an offence under the Adhiniyam. Confiscation proceedings as contemplated Under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam is a quasi-judicial proceedings and not a criminal proceedings. Confiscation proceeds on the basis of the 'satisfaction' of the Authorized officer with regard to the commission of forest offence. Sub-section (3) of the provision lays down the procedure to be followed for confiscation under the Adhiniyam. Sub-section (3A) authorizes forest officers of rank not inferior to that of a Ranger, who or whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, claims or any other Article as liable for confiscation, may release the same on execution of a security worth double the amount of the property so seized. This provision is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act should first examine whether the power to confiscate the seized forest produce is vested in the Authorized officer under the Act and if he finds so, then he has no power to pass any order dealing with interim custody/release of the seized material. Such ouster of jurisdiction would aid in proper implementation of the Adhiniyam. If in such cases the power to grant interim custody/release of seized forest produce is vested in the Magistrate, then it will defeat the very scheme of the Act. Such a consequence is to be avoided. 18. Another relevant provision which needs to be discussed is Section 15-D of the Adhiniyam. It provides that: 15-D. Confiscation of property when the produce is not the property of Government.-All specified forest produce which in either case is not the property of the Government and in respect of which a contravention of any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder has been committed and all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other articles, in case used in committing such contravention shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 15, 15-A, 15-B and 15-C be liable to confiscation upon conviction of the offender for such contravent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duce on conviction of the accused. This Court proceeded to observe- The conferral of the power of confiscation of seized timber or forest produce and the implements, etc. on the Authorized officer under Sub-section (2a) of Section 44 of the Act on his being satisfied that a forest offence had been committed in respect thereof, is not dependent upon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of a forest offence has been launched against the offender or not. It is a separate and distinct proceeding from that of a trial before the Court for commission of an offence. Under Sub-section (2A) of Section 44 of the Act, where a Forest Officer makes report of seizure of any timber before the Authorized Officer along with a report Under Section 44(2), the Authorized Officer can direct confiscation to Government of such timber or forest produce and the implements, etc., if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, irrespective of the fact whether the Accused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for the commission of a forest offence Under Section 20 or 29 of the Act. 22. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Gopal Sarkar (2002) 1 SCC 495, this Court again had an opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed 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. 25. 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. 26. At the cost of repetition we clarify that confiscatory proceedings are independent of the main criminal proceedings. In view of our detailed discussion in the preceding paragraph we are of opinion that High Court as well as the revisional court erred in coming to a conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
