The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Uday Singh

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 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 subsection (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]

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 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 subsection (4)(a) of Section 52, the bar of jurisdiction under subsection (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 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 Off icer 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 ; 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.