1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal  No.  524   of 2019  (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No 2001 of 2012)

The State of Madhya Pradesh  ...Appellant  

Versus  

Uday Singh       ...Respondent  

With

Criminal Appeal  No. 525     of 2019  (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No 5413 of 2013)

The State of Madhya Pradesh   ...Appellant  

Versus

Rakesh Lavaniya          …Respondent  

With

REPORTABLE

2

Criminal Appeal  Nos  1362-1363  of 2012

Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran           ...Appellant  

Versus

Narottam Singh           ...Respondent  

And  With

Criminal Appeal  No 1364  of  2012

Authorised Officer & Sub-Divisional  Officer, Shivpuri, M.P.        ...Appellant  

Versus

Jashrat Singh                       ...Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2019 @ SLP (Crl.) No.2001 of 2002:

2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench dated 29 July 2011. Allowing a

3

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731, the High

Court set aside a revisional order dated 16 June 2011 of the Additional Sessions

Judge, Morena. The Additional Sessions Judge had confirmed an order of the

Judicial Magistrate First Class2, Ambah dismissing an application under Section

451 of the CrPC seeking the release of a tractor and trolley which had been

seized for being involved in the illegal excavation of sand from the Chambal river.

3 On 26 March 2011, the Forest Officer apprehended a tractor and trolley

belonging  to  the  respondent  alleged  to  have  been  carrying  sand  illegally

excavated from a restricted area of Dalijeet Pura Ghat at the National Sanctuary,

Chambal without permission and in the absence of a transit pass. The tractor and

trolley was seized together with the sand by the officers of the Forest Department

under Sections 41, 52 and 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 19273 and Sections 27,

29,  39(1)(d),  51 and 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act,  1972.  Intimation of  the

seizure was given to the Magistrate under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act,

1927 on 27 March 2011.  The respondent moved an application4 under Section

451 of  the CrPC5 before the JMFC,  Ambah for  interim release of  the seized

vehicle.  The Magistrate  dismissed the application by an order  dated 21 April

1 “CrPC” 2 “JMFC” 3 “Indian Forest Act” 4 Application No 9661 of 2009 5 “Section 451 - Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. — When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, "property" includes— (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have

been used for the commission of any offence”

4

2011.  A Criminal  Revision6 met  with  the  same  fate  before  the  District  and

Sessions  Judge,  Morena  on  16  June  2011.  The  respondent  then  instituted

proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC7 before the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench. By a judgment dated 29 July 2011, the High Court

directed the Magistrate to pass orders for the interim release of the vehicle. The

State of Madhya Pradesh has instituted these proceedings under Article 136 of

the Constitution to assail the judgment of the High Court.  

4 The grievance of the State of Madhya Pradesh is that similar orders have

been  passed  by  the  High  Court  directing  the  Magistrate  to  release  seized

vehicles,  relying on a  decision of  this  Court  in  State  of  Madhya Pradesh v

Madhukar Rao8. According to the State, in Madhukar Rao, this Court interpreted

the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and came to the conclusion

that the Magistrate has the power and jurisdiction under Section 451 of the CrPC

to order  interim release of  a  seized vehicle.  On the other  hand,  it  has been

submitted that the present case and other cases of its genre are governed by the

provisions of the Indian Forest Act 1927 as amended in relation to the State of

Madhya Pradesh by MP Act 25 of 1983. The 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. Consequently, the jurisdiction of

the Magistrate under Section 451 of the CrPC would (it has been urged) stand

excluded. Elaborating on the above submissions, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant has relied on the decisions of this Court in: (i) Divisional

6 68 of 2011 7 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 5171 of 2011 8 (2008) 14 SCC 624

5

Forest  Officer v  GV  Sudhakar  Rao9, (ii) State  of  Karnataka v  KA

Kunchindammed10, (iii)  State of West Bengal v  Sujit Kumar Rana11; and (iv)

State of Madhya Pradesh v Kallo Bai12.  

5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that:

(i) Section 52 of the Forest Act provides that when a forest offence has been

committed in respect of any forest produce, the produce together with all

tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing

the offence may be seized by any Forest Officer. Section 52(3) provides that

subject  to sub-section (5),  where the Authorised Officer,  upon production

before him of property seized or upon receipt of a report about seizure, as

the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in

respect thereof,  he may order in writing, for reasons to be recorded, the

confiscation of the forest produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles,

boats, chains or any other article used in committing the offence;

(ii) For the State of Madhya Pradesh, MP Act 25 of 1983 substituted the original

provisions of  Section 52 of  the Forest  Act,  with  certain  conditions.  Sub-

section (3) of Section 52 as enacted by MP Act 25 of 1983, empowers the

Authorised Officer to make an order in writing with reasons confiscating the

forest produce so seized along with the tools, vehicles or any other article

used in committing the offence.  Similarly, for the State of Madhya Pradesh,

MP Act  25  of  1983 inserted  Section  52-A which  provides  for  an  appeal

9 (1985) 4 SCC 573 10 (2002) 9 SCC 90 11 (2004) 4 SCC 129 12 (2017) 14 SCC 502

6

against the order of confiscation to the Appellate Authority within thirty days

of the order of confiscation being passed by the Authorised Officer;

(iii) The High Court has erred in directing the release of the seized vehicle in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High

Court failed to appreciate that in the present case confiscation proceedings

have been initiated in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the Forest

Act, and the procedure thereafter would be governed by Sections 52 and

52-A.  Since the confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the forest

department, in terms of Section 52(3), the Magistrate in pursuance of the

power conferred under Section 451 of the CrPC cannot direct release of the

seized vehicle, as the jurisdiction of the criminal court stands excluded;

(iv)  This  Court  in  Sujit  Kumar Rana (supra)  has held that  once confiscation

proceedings  are  initiated,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  criminal  court  stands

excluded. Since confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the forest

authorities in terms of Section 52(3), the Magistrate cannot order release of

the vehicle under Section 451 of the CrPC. Similarly, the High Court cannot

under Section 482 of the CrPC direct release of the seized vehicle as the

jurisdiction of the criminal court stands excluded; and

(v) The legislative intent while inserting the abovementioned provisions must be

kept  in  mind.  Forests  are  a  national  wealth  which  are  required  to  be

preserved. In most cases, the State is the owner of the forest and forest

produce  and  is  enjoined  with  a  duty  to  preserve  forests  to  maintain  an

ecological  balance.  Therefore,  statutory  interpretation  of  such  provisions

should have regard to the principle of purposive construction so as to give

7

effect to the aim and object of the legislature, and keeping the principles

contained in Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution in mind.

6 On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the respondent13 that

Chapter  IX  of  the  Forest  Act,  as  amended  in  its  application  to  the  State  of

Madhya Pradesh, does not oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to deal with

seized property, once it becomes a part of evidence at a criminal trial under the

CrPC.  In this context, it was urged that:

(i) Under Section 52(2), where the intention is to launch criminal proceeding,

the report is to be sent only to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the

offence and not the Authorised Officer. The expression “officer seizing the

property” needs to be distinguished from the expression “authorised officer

under the Act”;

(ii) The said Authorised Officer can proceed to satisfy herself whether a forest

offence has been committed or not under Section 52(3), only if the seized

property is produced before the Authorised Officer. If under Section 52(2),

the report of the seizure has been sent to the Magistrate, the Authorised

Officer cannot decide upon the commission of a forest offence, as the report

of seizure is not before the Authorised Officer;

(iii) Since Authorised Officers cannot apply themselves to whether the seizure

was valid, the circumstance of the Authorised Officer passing an order of

confiscation does not arise at all. It follows that the intimation under Section

52(4) cannot be given when there is no confiscation;

13 In SLP (Crl.) No 5413 of 2013

8

(iv) The  bar  on  jurisdiction  under  Section  52-C  only  applies  after  intimation

under Section 52(4) is given. Since the Authorised Officer cannot pass an

order of confiscation, the jurisdiction for trial of a criminal offence and the

power to deal with the property involved rests with the Magistrate; and

(v) Therefore,  there  is  no  scope  for  parallel  proceedings  before  both  the

Authorised  Officer  and  the  Magistrate,  if  the  officer  seizing  the  property

believes that the gravity of the offence calls for a criminal trial and sends the

report of seizure directly to the Magistrate.

7 The rival submissions fall for consideration.

8 Section 52 of the Forest Act forms a part of Chapter IX which deals with

penalties  and  procedure.  In  relation  to  Madhya  Pradesh,  Section  52  was

substituted by MP Act 25 of 1983 and is in the following terms:

“52.  Seizure  of  property  liable  to  confiscation  and procedure therefor.— (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been  committed  in  respect  of  any  reserved  forest  and protected forest or forest produce, the produce, and all tools, boats,  vehicles,  ropes,  chains  or  any  other  article  used  in committing such offence, 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 an Extra  Assistant  Conservative  of  Forests  by  the  State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer) or where it is, having regard to the quantity of bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to  produce  property  seized  before  the  authorized  officer, make a report about the seizure to 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:

9

Provided that, when the forest produce with respect to which offence is believed to have been committed is the property of the  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 official superior. (3) Subject  to  sub-section  (5),  where  the  authorized officer upon production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate forest-produce  so  seized  together  with  all  tools,  vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such  offence.  A  copy  of  order  of  confiscation  shall  be forwarded without  any undue delay  to  the Conservators  of Forests of the forest circle in which the timber or the forest- produce, as the case may be, has been seized. (4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-section (3) unless the authorized officer— (a) sends an intimation in form prescribed about initiation of proceedings  for  confiscation  of  property  to  the  magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made; (b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to  the  authorized  officer  to  have  some  interest  in  such property; (c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may  be  specified  in  the  notice  against  the  proposed confiscation; and (d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing on date to be fixed for such purpose. (5) No  order  of  confiscation  under  sub-section  (3)  of  any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article (other than timber  or  forest-produce seized) shall  be made if  any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the  satisfaction  of  authorized  officer  that  any  such  tools, vehicles,  boats,  ropes,  chains  or  other  articles  were  used without his knowledge or convenience or,  as the case may be, without the  knowledge or convenience of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been  taken  against  use  of  the  objects  aforesaid  for commission of forest-offence. (6) The seized property shall  continue to be under custody until confirmation of the order of the authorized officer by the Appellate  Authority  or  until  the  expiry  of  the  period  for initiating  ‘suo  motu’  action  by  him whichever  is  earlier,  as prescribed under Section 52-A.

10

(7)  Where the authorized officer having jurisdiction over the case is himself  involved in the seizure or investigation, the next  higher  authority  may  transfer  the  case  to  any  other officer of the same rank for conducting proceedings under this section.”

9 Under sub-section (1) of Section 52, where there is a reason to believe

that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any reserved or protected

forest or forest produce, the produce, and all  tools, boats, vehicles or articles

used in committing the offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police

Officer. Under sub-section (2), the officer seizing the property is required to place

a mark of  seizure and produce the property  before the Authorised Officer  or,

where it is not practicable to produce the property seized, make a report to the

Authorised Officer. Where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against

the  offender  immediately,  a  report  of  the  seizure  has  to  be  made  to  the

Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure

has been made. Sub-section (3) stipulates that subject to sub-section (5), the

Authorised  Officer  may  upon  being  satisfied  that  a  forest  offence  has  been

committed upon the production of the property seized or on the receipt of a report

about  the seizure, order the forest  produce so seized,  together with all  tools,

vehicles, boats or article used in the commission of the offence to be confiscated.

No order of confiscation can be made unless the conditions mentioned under

sub-section (4) are complied with. Those conditions are:

(i) The Forest Officer must send an intimation in the form prescribed about the

initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property to the Magistrate

having jurisdiction to try the offence;

11

(ii) The issuance of a notice to the person from whom the property has been

seized or any other person who appears to have an interest in the property;  

(iii) Affording a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the

proposed confiscation; and  

(iv) Furnishing  of  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  to  the  officer  effecting  the

seizure and to the person to whom a notice has been given. Sub-section (5)

provides that no order for confiscation can be passed if the person to whom

a notice has been issued under clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves that the

tools,  vehicles,  boats  or  article  were  used  without  her  knowledge  or

connivance and that reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken

against their use for the commission of a forest offence.

10 Section 52-A provides an appellate remedy to a person aggrieved to the

Conservator of Forests, against an order of confiscation. Section 52-A provides

as follows:

“52-A. Appeal against the order of confiscation.— (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of  confiscation may,

within thirty days of the order, or if  fact of such order has not been communicated to him within thirty days of date of knowledge of such order, prefer an appeal in writing, accompanied by such fee and payable in such form as may  be  prescribed  and  by  certified  copy  of  order  of confiscation  to  the  Conservator  of  Forests  (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Authority) of the forest circle in which the forest produce, has been seized. Explanation. - (1) The time requisite for obtaining certified copy  of  order  of  confiscation  shall  be  excluded  while computing  period of  thirty  days  referred  to  in  this  sub- section. (2) The Appellate Authority referred to in sub-section (1), may,  where  no  appeal  has  been preferred  before  him, "suo motu" within thirty days of date of receipt of copy of order of confiscation by him, and shall on presentation of memorandum  of  appeal  issue  a  notice  for  hearing  of appeal or, as the case may be, of "suo motu" action to the

12

officer effecting seizure and to any other person (including appellant,  if  any)  who  in  the  opinion  of  the  Appellate Authority, is likely to be adversely affected by the order of the authorised officer, and may send for the record of the case: Provided that no formal notice of appeal need be issued to such amongst  the appellant,  officer  effecting seizure and any other person likely to be adversely affected as aforesaid, as may waive the notice or as may be informed in any other manner of date of hearing of appeal by the Appellate Authority. (3) The Appellate Authority shall send intimation in writing of  lodging of  appeal or  about  "suo motu" action,  to the Authorised Officer. (4)  The  Appellate  Authority  may  pass  such  order  of "Interim" nature for  custody,  preservation or  disposal  (if necessary) of the subject matter of confiscation, as may appear to be just or proper in the circumstances of the case. (5) The Appellate Authority, having regard to the nature of the case or the complexities involved, may permit parties to the appeal to be represented by their respective legal practitioners. (6) On the date fixed for hearing of the appeal or "suo motu" action, or on such date to which the hearing may be  adjourned,  the  Appellate  Authority  shall  peruse  the record and hear  the parties  to  the appeal  if  present  in person, or through any agent duly authorised in writing or through a legal practitioner, and shall thereafter proceed to pass an order of confirmation, reversal or modification order of the authorised officer: Provided that before passing any final order the Appellate Authority  may  if,  it  is  considered  necessary  for  proper decision of appeal or for proper disposal of "suo motu" action, make further inquiry itself or cause it to be made by the Authorised Officer, and may also allow parties to file affidavits for  asserting or  refuting any fact that  may arise for  consideration and may allow proof  of  facts  by affidavits. (7) The Appellate Authority may also pass such orders of consequential nature, as it may deem necessary. (8) Copy of final order or of order of consequential nature, shall be sent to the Authorised Officer for compliance or for passing any order appropriate order in conformity with the order of the Appellate Authority.”

Significantly,  under sub-section (4)  of  Section 52-A,  the Appellate Authority  is

empowered to pass orders of an interim nature for the custody, preservation or

14

under  section  52,  notwithstanding  anything  contrary  in  this Act, or any other law for the time being in force.  Explanation.—Where  under  any  law  for  the  time  being  in force,  two  or  more  Courts  have  jurisdiction  to  try  forest- offence,  then receipt  of  intimation under  sub-section  (4)  of section 52 by one of the Courts of  Magistrate having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt of intimation under that  provision  by  all  the  Courts  and  the  bar  to  exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts. (2) Nothing  in  sub-section  (1)  shall  affect  the  power  saved under section 61.”

Section 53 deals with the power to release property which is seized under Section

52:

“53. Power to release property seized under Section 52.- Any Forest-officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger, who,  or  whose  sub-ordinate,  has  seized  any  tools,  boats, vehicles  or  any  other  article  Section  52,  may  release  the same on the execution by the owner thereof, of a security in a form as may be prescribed of an amount equal to the value of such property, as estimated by such officer, for the production of  the  property  so  released,  when so  required,  before  the authorised officer under Section 52 or the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.”

This provision was substituted by MP Act 7 of  2010. Prior to the substitution,

Section 53 stipulated the release of the property seized on the execution of a

bond, for the production of the property, when required, before the Magistrate

having jurisdiction to try the offence.  Under Section 60, the property which has

been confiscated by an  Authorised Officer under Section 52 is  to  vest  in  the

government,  subject  to  the  result  of  the  proceedings  before  the  Appellate

Authority under Section 52 or upon  suo motu action under Section 52-A or a

revision before the Court of Sessions under Section 52-B.

15

11 The provisions for seizure and confiscation are depicted in Flow chart  I

below:

Flow Chart I: Seizure and Confiscation

Section 52

Sub-section (1) - Where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of forest produce, the produce and all tools, ropes, vehicles etc. used in commission of such offence may be seized by the Forest Officer.

Sub-section (2)

Mark the  property  and produce  it before Authorised Officer.

Or if the seized property is in bulk, make  a  report  to  the  Authorised Officer.

Where  it  is  intended  to  launch  a criminal  proceeding  against  the offender,  immediately  make  a report  to  the  Magistrate  having jurisdiction.

Sub-Section (3)

Subject to sub-section (5), the Authorised Officer upon the production of the property seized  or  report  of  seizure,  on  being  satisfied  that  a  forest  offence  has  been committed, for reasons to be recorded, can confiscate the forest produce so seized together with the vehicle.

Sub-section (4)

No order  of  confiscation  may  be  made  unless  the  Authorised  Officer  sends  an intimation to  the Magistrate  having jurisdiction  and issues notice,  and grants  an opportunity of making representation and hearing to a person from whom property had been seized or who has an interest in such property.

Sub-section (5)

No order under sub-section (3), shall be made if the person under clause (b) of sub- section (4) proves that such tools, vehicles, etc. were used without her knowledge or connivance and all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against their use.

16

Section 52-A – Appeal against order of confiscation – Any person aggrieved by the order of confiscation, may prefer an appeal in writing within thirty days.

Section  52-B  –  Revision  before  Court  of  Sessions  against  order  of  Appellate Authority –  

(i) The  party  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  Appellate  Authority  can  submit  a revision to the Court of Sessions within thirty days.  (ii) The Court of Sessions may confirm, reverse or modify the order.

Section 52-C – Bar to jurisdiction of Court under certain circumstances –  

(i) No  court,  tribunal  or  authority  except  the  Authorised  Officer  or  Appellate Authority and Court of Sessions referred under Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B shall have jurisdiction to make order in regard to possession, disposal, distribution, or delivery of the property. (ii) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power saved under Section 61.

Section 53 – Power to release property seized under Section 52 – A Forest Officer, not below the rank of Ranger, who or whose subordinate has seized the property under Section 52, may release it on the execution of security, equal to the value of such property in a form as prescribed, by the owner of the property.

17

13 Distinct from the proceedings for confiscation envisaged under the Forest

Act are those relating to criminal prosecution, as amended by the State of  

12 Distinct from the proceedings for confiscation envisaged under the Forest

Act  are  those  relating  to  criminal  prosecution,  as  amended  by  the  State  of

Madhya Pradesh. Section 52(2) stipulates that where it is intended to launch a

criminal proceeding against an offender immediately, a report of the seizure has

to be made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. Where the

property which has been seized under Section 52 is released by an Authorised

Officer under Section 53, it must be upon execution of security in such form as

may  be  prescribed,  equal  to  the  value  of  the  property,  so  as  to  ensure  the

production of the property when required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction

to  try  the  offence.  On  receipt  of  a  report  under  Section  52(2),  Section  54

stipulates that the Magistrate must take all measures necessary for the arrest and

trial of the offender and the disposal of the property according to law.  Section 54

provides thus:

“54. Procedure thereupon.- Upon the receipt  of  any such report, the Magistrate shall, with all convenient despatch, take such measures as may be necessary for the arrest and trial of the offender and the disposal of the property according to law:

Provided that before passing any order for disposal of property,  the  Magistrate  shall  satisfy  himself  that  no intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 has been

Section 60 – Property confiscated under Section 52 shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances upon:

(i) Expiry of period specified for preferring an appeal or for taking ‘suo moto’ action under Section 52-A, whichever is later.

(ii) Expiry of period specified for submitting petition for revision under Section 52-B.

18

received  by  his  Court  or  by  another  Court  having jurisdiction to try the offence on account  of  which the seizure of property has been made.”                                                               (emphasis supplied)

This proviso is significant, because before passing any order for disposal of the

property, the Magistrate must be satisfied that no intimation has been received

under Section 52(4).

13 Section 55 provides that upon the conviction of the offender for a forest

offence, the forest produce together with tools, boats, vehicles and other articles

used for its commission shall be liable to confiscation, subject to the provisions

of Sections 52, 52-A, 52-B and 52-C:

“55.  Forest-produce,  tools,  etc.,  when  liable  to confiscation.- (1) All timber or forest produce which in either case is not the property of the Government and in respect of which  a  forest-offence  has  been  committed,  and  all  tools, boats,  vehicles,  ropes,  chains or  any  other  article,  in  each case used in committing any forest-offence, shall subject to provisions of Sections 52, 52-A, 52-B and 52-C, be liable to confiscation upon conviction of the offender for such forest- offence.  (2)  Such  confiscation  may  be  in  addition  to  any  other punishment prescribed for such offence.”

14 The  intent  of  the  State  Legislature  is  emphasised  by  the  provisions

contained in the proviso to Section 54 as well as in sub-section (1) of Section 55.

Under Section 52(2) where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against

the offender immediately, the officer seizing any property under the Section has to

make a report of the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence

on account  of  which the seizure has been made.  Upon the conviction  of  the

offender for a forest offence, Section 55 clearly indicates that the forest produce

and all tools, boats, vehicles, articles etc. used in the commission of the forest

19

offence would be liable to confiscation  subject to the provisions of Sections 52,

52-A, 52-B and 52-C.

15 Section  56  provides  that  upon  the  conclusion  of  the  trial,  any  forest

produce in respect of which a forest offence has been committed shall, where it is

the property of the government or has been confiscated, be taken charge of by a

Forest Officer and, in any other case, may be disposed of in such manner as the

Court may direct.   

16 Section 57 deals with a situation where the offender is not known or cannot

be  found.  Section  58  deals  with  the  procedure  to  be  followed  in  respect  of

perishable property seized under Section 52.  

17 Section 59 provides that the officer making a seizure under Section 52, or

any superior or a person claiming to be interested in the property seized, may

within a month of any order passed under Sections 55, 56 or 57 appeal to the

Court to which orders made by the Magistrate are ordinarily appealable. Under

sub-section (2) of  Section 60, where no appeal has been preferred within the

period of limitation or where an appeal has been preferred and the order has

been  confirmed  by  the  appellate  Court,  the  property  shall  vest  with  the

government free from all encumbrances.  

18 Flow-chart II below indicates the scheme in relation to criminal proceedings

under the Forest Act as amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh:

Flow Chart II : Criminal Proceedings

Section 52(2) – Launch of criminal proceedings

Where it is intended to launch a criminal proceeding against the offender, the officer seizing  the  property  is  to  immediately  make  a  report  of  such  seizure  to  the Magistrate having jurisdiction to the try the offence.

20

Section 54

Upon receipt of a report under 52(2), the Magistrate shall take measures for arrest and trial of the offender and disposal of property under law. Provided there is no intimation under Section 52(4) with respect to initiation of confiscation proceedings by the Authorised Officer.

Section 55

Forest produce, vehicles and tools or any other article used in committing a forest offence,  shall  be liable to confiscation upon conviction of  the offender.  Provision subject to Section 52, 52-A, 52-B and 52-C.

Section 56

Disposal of produce in respect of which offence has been committed, on conclusion of the trial – When a trial of a forest offence is concluded, any forest produce in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, both property of government or which has been confiscated, are to be taken charge of by the Forest Officer, and in any other case, may be disposed of in such a manner as directed by the Court.  

Section 57

When an offender is not known, or cannot be found – the Magistrate may order the property to be confiscated and taken charge of by the Forest Officer, or the person deemed fit by the Magistrate. No order to be made for thirty days from the date of seizing or without hearing the person, who claims any right thereto.

Section 58

Procedure as to perishable property  seized under Section 52 – Notwithstanding anything  contained  hereinbefore,  the  Magistrate  may  direct  sale  of  perishable property and deal with the sale proceeds.

21

19 Several  decisions  rendered  by  this  Court  have  a  bearing  on  the

controversy involved in the present case. In a decision of 1985 in GV Sudhakar

Rao (supra), the issue before a two judge Bench of this Court was whether the

High  Court  could  have  taken  recourse  to  Section  482  of  the  CrPC  to  stay

proceedings for the confiscation of illicitly felled forest produce which was seized

under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 till the disposal of a criminal case

pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, for offences under the Act. This Court

upheld the correctness of the view of a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High

Court  in  State  of  AP v  PK Mohammad14 and of  a  Division  Bench  in  Mohd

14 (1978) 1 APLJ 391

Section 59

Appeal from orders under Section 55, 56 or 57 to be made within thirty days to the Court to which orders made by such Magistrate are ordinarily appealable. The order passed on appeal shall be final.

Section 60(2)

When no appeal is preferred under Section 59 or when the appellate court confirms order of confiscation of property, such property shall vest in the government, free from all encumbrances.

22

Yaseen v  Forest Range Officer,  Flying Squad, Rayachoti15 that the Andhra

Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 contemplated two procedures, one for the confiscation

of the goods forming the subject matter of the offence by an Authorised Officer

under Section 44 (2A)16 and the other for the trial of a person accused of the

offence so committed under Section 20 or 2917.  Explaining the purpose of the

legislation, this Court noted with approval the view of the High Court in the above

cases  that  the  provision  for  confiscation  by  an  Authorised  Officer had  been

enacted in  public  interest  to  suppress an evil  which the legislature  wishes to

avoid:

“14. We  find  that  a  later  division  bench  consisting  of Kondaiah,  C.J.  and Punnayya,  J. in Mohd Yaseen v. Forest Range  Officer, Flying  Squad, Rayachoti [(1980)  1  ALT  8] approved of the view expressed by Jeewan Reddy, J. in P.K. Mohammad case [(1978) 1 APLJ 391], and held that the Act contemplates two procedures, one for confiscation of goods forming the subject-matter of the offence by the Authorized Officer under sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act, and the other  for  trial  of  the person accused of  the offence so committed under Section 20 or 29 of the Act.  The learned Judges  held  that  the  Act  provides  for  a  special machinery  for  confiscation  of  illicitly  felled  timber  or forest  produce  by  the  Authorized  Officer  under  sub- section (2-A) of Section 44 enacted in the general public interest to suppress the mischief of ruthless exploitation of  government  forests  by  illicit  felling  and  removal  of teak and other valuable forest produce.”                                                                 (emphasis supplied)

15 (1980) 1 ALT 8 16 “(2-A) Where an Authorized Officer seizes under sub-section (1) any timber or forest produce or where any such timber or forest produce is produced before him under sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the timber or forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence.” 17 Section 20 provides for penalties for trespass or damage in reserved forest and acts prohibited in such forest, and Section 29 provides for the power to make rules to regulate the transit possession of timber and other forest produce.

23

Consequently, the mere fact that there was an acquittal in a criminal trial before a

Magistrate due to a paucity of evidence would not necessarily result in nullifying

the order of confiscation passed by an Authorised Officer based on a satisfaction

that a forest offence had been committed.

20 In 2002, a two judge Bench of this Court in KA Kunchindammed (supra)

dealt with the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963. The issue before the

Court was whether it is the  Authorised Officer under that Act or the Magistrate

under the CrPC who is vested with the power to order interim release of forest

produce seized under the Act. Section 7118 contained a savings provision that

allowed an officer duly empowered by the state government to direct the release

of property seized under Section 62, which is the property of the government.

Section  71-G19 provided  for  the  bar  of  jurisdiction,  save  and  except  of  the

Authorised Officer or the  Appellate Authority.  Interpreting the provisions of  the

Karnataka  Forest  Act,  1963 this  Court  held  that  the law is  a  special  statute.

Moreover, the non obstante clause gave overriding effect to the legislation as a

result of which the general power which is vested with the Magistrate under the

CrPC is taken away.  Justice DP Mohapatra, speaking for the Court, held:

18 “71. Saving of power to release property seized.—Nothing hereinbefore contained shall be deemed to prevent any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government from directing at any time the immediate release of any property seized under Section 62, which is not the property of Government, and the withdrawal of any charge made in respect of such property.” 19 “71-G. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.—Whenever any timber, ivory, Gulmavu (Machilus Marantha) bark, Dalchini bark, Halmaddi (exudation of Ailanthus Malabaricum), canes firewood or charcoal belonging to the State  Government  or any  sandalwood,  together  with  any  tool,  rope,  chain,  boat,  vehicle  or  cattle  used  in committing any offence is seized under sub-section (1) of Section 62, the authorized officer under Section 71-A or the officer specially empowered under Section 71-C or the Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under Section 71-D shall  have  and,  notwithstanding  anything  to  the  contrary  contained  in  this  Act  or  in  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, any other officer, court, tribunal or authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property.”

24

“23. The Karnataka Forest Act is a special statute enacted for the purpose of preserving the forests and the forest produce in  the  State.  The scheme of  the  Act,  as  expressed in  the sections, is to vest  power in the Authorized Officers of  the Forest Department for proper implementation/enforcement of the  statutory  provisions  and  for  enabling  them  to  take effective steps for preserving the forests and forest produce. For  this  purpose,  certain  powers  including  the  power  of seizure,  confiscation  and  forfeiture  of  the  forest  produce illegally  removed  from  the  forests  have  been  vested exclusively in them. The position is made clear by the non obstante clause in  the relevant  provisions giving overriding effect  to  the  provisions  in  the  Act  over  other  statutes  and laws. The necessary corollary of such provisions is that in a case where the Authorized Officer is empowered to confiscate the seized forest produce on being satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed thereof the general power vested  in  the  Magistrate  for  dealing  with  interim custody/release of  the seized materials under CrPC has to give way.  The Magistrate while dealing with a case of  any seizure  of  forest  produce  under  the  Act  should  examine whether the power to confiscate the seized forest produce is vested in the Authorized Officer under the Act and if he finds that such power is vested in the Authorized Officer then he has  no  power  to  pass  an  order  dealing  with  interim custody/release of the seized material. This, in our view, will help in proper implementation of provisions of the special Act and  will  help  in  advancing  the  purpose  and  object  of  the statute.  If  in  such  cases  power  to  grant  interim custody/release of the seized forest produce is vested in the Magistrate then it  will  be defeating the very scheme of the Act. Such a consequence is to be avoided.  

24. From the statutory provisions and the analysis made in the foregoing paragraphs the position that emerges is that the learned  Magistrate  and  the  learned  Sessions  Judge  were right in holding that on facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is the Authorized Officer who is vested with the power to pass order of interim custody of the vehicle and not the Magistrate.”

Consequently, in the view of this Court, it is the Authorised Officer who is vested

with the power to pass an order for interim custody of a seized vehicle and not the

Magistrate.

25

21 Subsequently  in  2004 in  Sujit  Kumar  Rana (supra)  another  two  judge

Bench of this Court dealt with the applicability of Section 482 of the CrPC for

quashing of proceedings for confiscation of forest produce under the provisions of

the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended in relation to the State of West Bengal.

Sections  59-A  to  59-G20 were  inserted  in  the  principal  Act  by  the  State

amendments to inter alia, confer a power of seizure and confiscation and to enact

a  bar  of  jurisdiction  of  other  courts  and  tribunals  notwithstanding  anything

contained in the CrPC. This Court held:

“31. Once, however, a confiscation proceeding is initiated; in terms  of  Section  59-G  of  the  Act,  the  jurisdiction  of  the criminal  court  in  this  behalf  stands  excluded.  The  criminal court  although indisputably has the jurisdiction to deal  with the property which is the subject-matter of offence in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but once a confiscation proceeding is initiated, the said power cannot be exercised by the Magistrate.”

Once the criminal court had no power to deal with the property seized under the

Act, the High Court was held to have no jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

CrPC to quash proceedings for confiscation of forest produce.  

20 “59-A. Confiscation by Forest Officer of forest produce in the case of forest offence believed to have been committed.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or in any other law for the time being in force, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of the timber or other forest produce which is the property of the State Government, the Forest Officer or the police officer  seizing  the  timber  or  other  forest  produce  under  sub-section  (1)  of  Section  52,  shall,  without  any unreasonable delay, produce the same, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing the offence, before an officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant Conservator of Forests, authorized by the State Government in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer).”

Section 59-B provides the procedure for issue of notice before confiscation. Section 59C provides for a revision against the order of confiscation.  Section 59D provides a right to appeal against the order of revision. Section 59E provides a savings provision for award of punishment under other provision of the Act. Section 59F provides that confiscated property and proceeds of sale to vest in Government.

“Section  59-G. Bar  of  jurisdiction  in  certain  cases.—Notwithstanding  anything  to  the  contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the officer authorized under Section 59-A or the Forest Officer specially empowered under Section 59-C or the District Judge to whom an appeal may be preferred under Section 59-D shall have and any other officer or Forest Officer or court, tribunal or authority shall not have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the custody, possession, delivery,  disposal  or distribution of any property or tools, ropes, chains, boats,  vehicles or cattle seized under Section 52.”

26

22 In 2017, a similar view has been taken by another two judge Bench of this

Court in Kallo Bai (supra) while construing the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh

Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. By virtue of the amendments made

to  the  Adhiniyam,  Sections  15-A  to  15-D21 were  introduced  to  provide  for

confiscation proceedings in line with the provisions contained in the Forest Act as

amended  in  relation  to  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh.  Relying  on  the  earlier

decisions of this Court including GV Sudhakar Rao (supra), Justice NV Ramana,

speaking for the two judge Bench held:

“23. 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  of  the 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.”

23 This leaves the Court to deal with a judgment rendered in 2008 by a two

judge Bench of this Court in  State of MP v  Madhukar Rao22. The issue in that

21 Section 15-A provides for an appeal against order of confiscation. Section 15-B. provides for a revision before Court of Sessions against order of Appellate Authority.

“Section 15-C. Bar of jurisdiction of court etc. under certain circumstances.— (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (5) of Section 15 about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and Court of Sessions referred to in Sections 15, 15-A and 15-B as the case may be), shall  have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated under Section 15, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or, any other law for the time being in force:

Provided that before passing any order for disposal of property the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that no intimation under sub-section (5) of Section 15 has been received by his Court or by any other Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure of property has been made.

Explanation.—Where under any law for the time being in force, two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try offence under this Act, then receipt of intimation under sub-section (5) of Section 15 by one of the Courts of Magistrate having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt of intimation under that provision by all the Courts and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts.

(2) Nothing hereinbefore contained shall be deemed to prevent any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government from directing at any time the immediate release of any property seized under Section 15.”

Section 15-D provides for confiscation of property when the produce is not the property of Government. 22 (2008) 14 SCC 624

27

case was whether upon the seizure of a vehicle or vessel under Section 50(1)(c)23

of the Wildlife Protection Act,  1972,  the Magistrate has no power to direct  its

release  under  Section  451  of  the  CrPC  during  the  pendency  of  a  trial.

Significantly, in that case the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 did not

contain provisions analogous to the MP amendments to the Forest Act or for that

matter  those  contained  in  the  state  laws  noticed  in  Sudhakar  Rao,

Kunchindammed, Sujit Kumar Rana  and Kallo Bai.  Section 50 empowered

the Director or the Chief  Wildlife Warden,  Forest Officer,  Authorised Officer or

Police Officer, if they had reasonable grounds for believing that any person has

committed an offence under the Act, to seize a captive or wild animal, animal

article, meat, trophy etc. together with tools, vehicles, vessels or weapons used

for the commission of the offence. Under sub section (2) of Section 50, prior to its

amendment  in  October  199124,  the  Assistant  Director  or  Wildlife  Warden was

empowered to release inter alia, a vehicle, vessel or weapon subject to a bond.

This  provision  was  deleted  in  1991  and  was  substituted25 by  a  provision  for

23 “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,-

… (c) seize any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy or uncured trophy, or any specified

plant  or  part  or  derivative  thereof,  in  respect  of  which  an  offence  against  this  Act  appears  to  have  been committed,  in the possession of any person together with any trap,  tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon used for committing any such offence and, unless he is satisfied that such person will appear and answer any charge which may be preferred against him, arrest him without warrant, and detain him:

Provided  that  where  a  fisherman  residing  within  ten  kilometres  of  a  sanctuary  or  National  Park, inadvertently  enters  on a boat,  not  used for  commercial  fishing, in the territorial  waters in that  sanctuary or National Park, a fishing tackle or net on such boat shall not be seized.” 24 “(2) Any officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant Director of Wild Life preservation of Wild Life Warden, who, or whose subordinate has seized any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon under clause (c) of sub- section (1), may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production of the property so released, if  and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.” 25 Section 50(2) was deleted post-amendment and replaced with Section 50(3A) as follows:

“(3A) Any officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or an Assistant Conservator of Forests, who, or whose subordinate, has seized any captive animal or wild animal under clause (c) of sub-section (1) may give the same for custody on the execution by any person of a bond for the production of such animal if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.”

28

handing  over  custody  of  a  captive  animal  or  wild  animal  which  was  seized,

subject  to  the  execution  of  a  bond  for  production  before  a  Magistrate  of  a

competent  jurisdiction.   In  view  of  the  more  limited  power  of  release  post-

amendment, it was urged that Section 50 provided a comprehensive scheme and

it was not open to the Magistrate to direct  interim release of a vehicle seized

under Section 50. This submission was rejected by the Court, which held that

Section 50 and other provisions in Chapter VI of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972

did not exclude the application of the provisions of the CrPC. The decision in

Kunchindammed was  distinguished  on  the  ground  that  it  dealt  with  the

provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 whereas the provisions contained in

the Wildlife Protection Act were materially different. Consequently, it was held that

the provisions of Section 50 did not affect the Magistrate’s power to order interim

release of a vehicle under Section 451 of the CrPC. The decision in  Madhukar

Rao involved legislation which had provisions distinct from the special provisions

contained in the state amendment to the Forest Act enacted in relation to Madhya

Pradesh. Indeed, the Court  noted the distinction when it  dealt  with the earlier

decision in Kunchindammed which arose in the context of the Karnataka Forest

Act 1963.

24 In  Kailash  Chand v  State  of  MP26,  a  Division  Bench  of  the  Madhya

Pradesh High Court considered a challenge to the constitutional validity of the

state amendments to the Forest Act through MP Act 25 of 1983. Noticing that a

criminal prosecution and a proceeding for confiscation are distinct, each with its

own purpose and object, the High Court held:

26 (1995) AIR (MP) 1

29

“...Criminal  prosecution is  not  an alternative to  confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are parallel proceedings, each  having  a  distinct  purpose  and  object.  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. The object of the prosecution is to punish the offender...”

Explaining  the  underlying  purpose  and  object  of  the  state  amendment,  the

Division Bench noted:

“…The scheme of the Central Act contemplating successful prosecution of the offender leading to confiscation has been drastically  modified  by  the  1983  Act  to  provide  for  an additional  procedure  for  confiscation,  a  procedure which is less cumbersome and more expeditious than the procedure of  prosecution  and  at  the  same  time,  assuring  necessary safeguards  to  the  affected  persons.  The  scheme  of  the Central  Act  provides  for  prosecution  incidentally  leading  to confiscation  of  property.   The  scheme of  the  amendments introduced  by  the  1983  Act  prescribes  an  independent procedure for confiscation.  The intention is to ensure that the vehicle used in the transaction is no longer available for such misuse and to  act  as  deterrent  for  the  other  offender  and others.  These objects can be well served by confiscating the vehicle...”

25 In a judgment rendered by one of us (Brother Justice Hemant Gupta as

Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court) in Ramkumar Sahoo v State

of  Madhya  Pradesh27,  these  principles  were  followed  while  construing  the

provisions of Rule 53 of the MP Minor Mineral Rules 1996.

26 Our analysis  of  the amendments brought by MP Act  25 of  1983 to the

Indian Forest Act 1927 leads to the conclusion that 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

27 Writ Petition No 18818 of 2017 decided on 15 February 2018

30

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.  Where  it  is  intended  to  immediately  launch  a

criminal  proceeding,  a report  of  the seizure is  made 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  CrPC 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, 52-A 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.  Sub-section  (1)  of  Section  52-C has  a  non obstante  provision

which operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian

Forest Act 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force. The only saving is

in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State government for directing the

immediate release of a property seized under Section 52, as provided in Section

31

61. Hence, 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 CrPC, 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

CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the Authorised Officer initiated

confiscation proceedings.  

27 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 48A28 of the Directive

Principles  and  the  Fundamental  Duty  of  every  citizen  incorporated  in  Article

51A(g)29.   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.  The state amendment has sought to overcome that deficiency by

imposing  stringent  deterrents  against  activities  which  threaten  the  pristine

existence of forests in Madhya Pradesh.  As an effective tool for protecting and

preserving environment, these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation.

28 Article 48(A) : "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.". 29 Sub-clause (g) of Article 51A provides : “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”

32

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.   

28 For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned

judgment and order of the High Court dated 29 July 2011 in MCRC 5171 of 2011.

Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2019 @ SLP (Crl.) No 5413 of 2013:

29 For the reasons which have been indicated in the judgment delivered today

in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No 2001 of 2012, the judgment

and order of the High Court dated 7 July 2011 in MCRC No 1818 of 2009 shall

stand set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed.

Criminal Appeal No 1364 of 2012:

30 For the reasons which have been indicated in the judgment delivered in

Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No 2001 of 2012, the judgment

and order of the High Court dated 7 July 2011 in MCRC No 2634 of 2009 shall

stand set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed.

33

Criminal Appeal Nos 1362-63 of 2012:

31 For the reasons which have been indicated in the judgment delivered today

in  Criminal  Appeal  @  Special  Leave  Petition  (Crl.)  No  2001  of  2012,  the

judgments and orders of the High Court dated 7 July 2011 and 21 September

2011 in MCRC No 1751 of 2009 and MCRC No 5673 of 2011 shall stand set

aside and the appeals are accordingly allowed.

                                                   ……......................................................J

     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

.….….....................................................J       [Hemant Gupta]

New Delhi; March 26, 2019.