2019 Supreme(SC) 355

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Uday Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 2001 of 2012)
With
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Lavaniya – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 5413 of 2013)
With
Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran – Appellant
Versus
Narottam Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1362-1363 of 2012
And With
Authorised Officer & Sub-Divisional Officer, Shivpuri, M.P. – Appellant
Versus
Jashrat Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1364 of 2012
Decided On : 26-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It is Authorised Officer who is vested with power to pass an order for interim custody of a seized vehicle and not Magistrate.
(2) High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for confiscation of forest produce.
(3) Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to daily assaults on environment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Forest Act 1927 – Section 52, 52-A, 52-B, 52-C and 53 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 451 – Forest offence – Release of confiscated vehicle – It is Authorised Officer who is vested with power to pass an order for interim custody of a seized vehicle and not Magistrate – Once criminal court has no power to deal with property seized under the Act, High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.> to quash proceedings for confiscation of forest produce. (Paras 20 and 21)

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 451 – Indian Forest Act 1927 – Section 52, 52-A, 52-B, 52-C and 53 – Release of confiscated vehicle – Tractor and trolley had been seized for being involved in illegal excavation of sand from Chambal river – Specific provisions have been made for seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences – Before confiscating any property under sub-section (3) of Section 52, Authorised Officer is required to send intimation of initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property to Magistrate having jurisdiction to try offence – Where it is intended to immediately launch criminal proceeding, report of seizure is made to Magistrate having jurisdiction to try offence – Upon receipt of intimation by Magistrate of initiation of confiscation proceedings under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52, bar of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted – Direction which was issued by High Court in present case, in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to Magistrate to direct interim release of vehicle which had been seized, was contrary to law – Jurisdiction under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. was not available to Magistrate once Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside. (Paras 26 and 28)

       (C)Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Purposive Construction – Madhya Pradesh amendments to 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 Directive Principles and Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A(g) – By isolating confiscation of forest produce and instruments utilised for commission of offence from criminal trials, legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent – Absence of effective deterrence was considered by Legislature to be a deficiency in legal regime – State amendment has sought to overcome that deficiency by imposing stringent deterrents against activities which threaten pristine existence of forests in Madhya Pradesh – As an effective tool for protecting and preserving environment, these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation – It is only when interpretation of law keeps pace with object of Legislature that grave evils which pose a danger to our natural environment can be suppressed – Avarice of humankind through ages has resulted in an alarming depletion of natural environment – Consequences of climate change are bearing down on every day of our existence – Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to daily assaults on environment. (Para 27)

       Facts of Case:

       Confiscation of vehicle. Allowing a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, High Court set aside revisional order of Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. Additional Sessions Judge had confirmed order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class2, Ambah dismissing application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of a tractor and trolley which had been seized for being involved in illegal excavation of sand from Chambal river.

       Findings of Court:

       Upon the receipt of an intimation by Magistrate of initiation of confiscation proceedings under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52, bar of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted. Scheme contained in amendments enacted to Indian Forest Act 1927 in relation to State of Madhya Pradesh, makes it abundantly clear that direction which was issued by High Court in present case, in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to Magistrate to direct interim release of vehicle which had been seized, was contrary to law. Jurisdiction under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. was not available to Magistrate once Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings.

       Result : Appeals allowed.