The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Uday Singh

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 1973 1, 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, 1927 3 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 application 4 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.

(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:

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.

…

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.

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.