THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus UDAY SINGH
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 154, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
UDAY SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2019)
MARCH 26, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Forest Act, 1927: ss. 52(substituted by MP Act 25 of 1983),
52A – Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure
thereof – Seizure of tractor and trolley involved in illegal excavation
of sand from Chambal river – Confiscation proceedings initiated in
terms of s. 52(3) – Jurisdiction of the Magistrate u/s. 451 CrPC to
order interim release of the seized vehicle – Held: Procedure is
governed by ss. 52 and 52A – Magistrate has no jurisdiction u/s.
451 CrPC to direct release of the seized vehicle – Order passed by
the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC directing the Magistrate to pass orders
for interim release of the seized vehicle set aside – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – ss. 451, 482.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Forest
Act, 1927 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
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 154
154
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
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:
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; 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; Affording a reasonable opportunity of making a
representation against the proposed confiscation; and 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. [Para 9][166-D-H; 167-A-D]
1.2 Section 52-A provides an appellate remedy to a person
aggrieved to the Conservator of Forests, against an order of
confiscation. 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 disposal of the subject
matter of the confiscation. Section 52-B provides for the remedy
of a revision before the Court of Sessions against an order of the
Appellate Authority. Section 53 deals with the power to release
property which is seized under Section 52. 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 u/s 52-B.
[Para 10][167-D; 169-B; 171-A-B]
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
1.3 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. 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). 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.
[Para 12, 13][173-D-G; 174-B-D]
1.4 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 offence would be liable to confiscation subject
to the provisions of Sections 52, 52-A, 52-B and 52-C.
[Para 14][174-F-G]
1.5 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
157
Section 52(1), the officer effecting the seizure has to either
produce the property 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 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 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 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 instant case, in a petition under Section 482 CrPC, to the
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which
had been seized, was contrary to law. The jurisdiction under
Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the
Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings.
[Para 26][185-A-H; 186-A-B]
1.6 The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Forest Act
1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose. Protection of
forests against depredation is a constitutionally mandated goal
exemplified by Article 48A of the Directive Principles and the
Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A(g).
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. 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 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. The impugned judgment and order
of the High Court is set aside. [Para 27, 28][186-B-F]
State of Madhya Pradesh v Madhukar Rao (2008) 14
SCC 624 : [2008] 1 SCR 413 ; Divisional Forest Officer
v GV Sudhakar Rao (1985) 4 SCC 573 : [1985] 3  Suppl.
SCR 680 ; State of Karnataka v KA Kunchindammed
(2002) 9 SCC 90 : [2002] 3 SCR 162 ; State of West
Bengal v Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129 : [2004]
1 SCR 870 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v Kallo Bai
(2017) 14 SCC 502 ; State of AP v PK Mohammad
(1978) 1 APLJ 391 ; Mohd Yaseen v Forest Range
Officer, Flying Squad, Rayachoti (1980) 1 ALT 8 ;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
159
Kailash Chand v State of MP (1995) AIR (MP) 1 ;
Ramkumar Sahoo v State of Madhya Pradesh WP No
18818 of 2017 decided on 15.02.2018 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 1 SCR 413
referred to
Para 4
[1985] 3 Suppl. SCR  680
referred to
Para 4
[2002] 3 SCR 162
referred to
Para 4
[2004] 1 SCR 870
referred to
Para 4
(2017) 14 SCC 502
referred to
Para 4
(1978) 1 APLJ 391
referred to
Para 19
(1980) 1 ALT 8
referred to
Para 19
(1995) AIR (MP) 1
referred to
Para 24
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 524 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2011 by the High Court
of M.P., Bench at Gwalior in Misc. Crl. Case No. 5171/2011.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2019
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1362-1363 and 1364 of 2012
Varun K. Chopra, Dy. Adv. Gen., Gurtej Pal Singh,
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Jitesh P. Gupta, Ms. Praveena Gautam, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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 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
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”
6 68 of 2011
7 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 5171 of 2011
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
161
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 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
8 (2008) 14 SCC 624
9 (1985) 4 SCC 573
10 (2002) 4 SCC 90
11 (2004) 4 SCC 129
12 (2017) 14 SCC 502
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
(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 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
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
(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:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
165
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
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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.
(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;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
167
(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 officer effecting seizure and to any other person
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
(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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
(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 disposal of the subject matter of the confiscation.
Section 52-B provides for the remedy of a revision before the Court of
Sessions against an order of the Appellate Authority. Section 52-B is in
the following terms:
“52-B. Revision before Court of Sessions against order of
Appellate Authority.—
(1) Any party to the appeal, aggrieved by final order or by order
of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority, may
within thirty days of the order sought to be impugned, submit a
petition for revision to the Court of Sessions within the Sessions
division whereof the headquarters of the Appellate Authority are
situate. Explanation.—In computing the period of thirty days under
this sub-section, the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of
Appellate Authority shall be excluded.
(2) The Court of Sessions, may confirm, reverse or modify any
final order or an order of consequential nature passed by the
Appellate Authority.
(3) Copies of the order passed in revision shall be sent to the
Appellate Authority and to the Authorised officer for compliance
or for passing such further
orders or for taking such further action
as may be directed by such Court.
(4) For entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under this
section, the Court of Sessions shall, as far as may be, exercise the
same powers and follow the same procedure as it exercises and
follows while entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974).
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974), the order of the
Court of Sessions passed under this section shall be final and shall
not be called in question before any Court.”
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Section 52-C contains a bar to the jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and
authorities:
“52-C. Bar of Jurisdiction of court, etc., under certain
circumstances.—
(1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52
about initiation of proceedings for confiscation or 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 52, 52- A and 52-B) shall have
jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery,
disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which
proceedings for confiscation are initiated 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.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
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.
11. The provisions for seizure and confiscation are depicted in
Flow chart I below:
Flow Chart I: Seizure and Confiscation
Sub-section (2)
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.
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.
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 bee committed, for reasons to be recorded,
can confiscate the
forest produce so seize together with the vehicle.
Sub-section (3)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
173
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.
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.
12. Distinct from the proceedings for confiscation envisaged under
the Forest Act are those relating to criminal prosecution, as amended by
the State of 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:
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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
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 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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
175
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.
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.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
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 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.
14 (1978) 1 APLJ 391
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.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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)
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
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.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
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:
“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.”
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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.
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
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.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
181
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.
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:
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.
THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
“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 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
22 (2008) 14 SCC 624
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.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
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 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 “(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.”
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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:
“...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
26 (1995) AIR (MP) 1
27 Writ Petition No 18818 of 2017 decided on 15 February 2018
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
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 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 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,
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
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. 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
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.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
187
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.
Nidhi Jain
Appeals allowed.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]