Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ranjit Kumar Bag, J.
Enquiry Officer-Forest Range Officer, Wildlife Wing, Vigilance Section, Wildlife Head Quarters, Directorate of Forest, Bikash Bhawan, Kolkata - Petitioner
Versus
Md. Saheb - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 785 of 2014
Decided On : 21-03-2016
WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972 - CONFISCATION OF VEHICLE - JURISDICTION - INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927 - APPLICABILITY - The Indian Forest Act, 1927 cannot be invoked by the authorized officer for confiscation of the vehicle seized for violation of the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Forest Range Officer, challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the Magistrate's order refusing to release the seized taxi on interim custody. The taxi was seized for carrying birds in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The petitioner contended that the seized taxi could be confiscated under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the State of West Bengal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the State of West Bengal, cannot be invoked for confiscation of the vehicle seized for violation of the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in "State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madhukar Rao" and "Principal Chief Conservator of Forests v. J.K. Johnson", which held that the property seized under Section 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, can be branded as Government property under Section 39 (1)(d) of the Act only after the conclusion of the trial by a competent court.
Issues: Whether the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the State of West Bengal, can be invoked for confiscation of the vehicle seized for violation of the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the State of West Bengal, cannot be invoked for confiscation of the vehicle seized for violation of the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, because: 1. The Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Section 39 (1)(d) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, cannot be used to brand the vehicle seized under Section 50 of the Act as Government property for denial of power of the Magistrate to release the said seized vehicle on interim custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The property seized under Section 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, has to be dealt with by the Magistrate in accordance with law. 3. The Officer authorized under Section 54 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, to compound the offences under the Act, has no power, competence, and authority to order forfeiture of the seized articles in connection with the offences suspected to have been committed by a person under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Ranjit Kumar Bag, J.
The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated December 9, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision no.183 of 2013 whereby the order dated November 6, 2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with Case no. POR 51/WL of 2013-2014 dated September 15, 2013 was set aside. Learned Additional Sessions Judge gave direction to learned Magistrate for passing fresh order regarding disposal of the seized vehicle.
2. On September 15, 2013 the opposite party was carrying 21 Parakeets and 151 Munias by his taxi bearing no.WB 04A - 9977 when the taxi was intercepted by the officers of Wild Life Wing. The authorised officer searched the said taxi, seized the birds, arrested the persons who were carrying the birds along with the opposite party and seized the said taxi for violation of the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. One complaint was filed before the court of learned Magistrate against the opposite party and two others for commission of the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for violation of the provisions of Sections 9, 39, 44, 48, 49 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. On September 26, 2013 the Divisional Forest Officer, (Wildlife Headquarters), West Bengal issued a notice to the opposite party calling upon him to explain in writing why the seized taxi will not be confiscated to the State. The opposite party gave reply in writing which was considered by the said Forest Officer. On October 29, 2013 the Forest Officer issued summons to the opposite party calling upon him to appear before the said authorised Officer on November 12, 2013 in connection with hearing of confiscation of the seized taxi. In the meantime, the opposite party moved an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for return of the seized taxi on interim custody. On November 6, 2013 learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta refused to release the seized taxi in favour of the opposite party. The said order was challenged before the court of sessions by the opposite party by preferring Criminal Revision no.183 of 2013. On December 9, 2013 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta disposed of Criminal Revision no.183 of 2013 by setting aside the order passed by learned Magistrate and by giving direction to learned Magistrate to pass fresh order for return of the seized taxi in the light of the observations made by learned Additional Sessions Judge. On January 9, 2014 the authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Wildlife, West Bengal passed an order of confiscation of the seized taxi under Section 59A(3) of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner being the Enquiry Officer-Forest Range Officer, Wildlife Wing, Vigilance Section, (Wildlife Headquarters), Directorate of Forest, has preferred this revision challenging the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta.
3. With the above factual matrix, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the seized taxi of the opposite party is confiscated by the authorised officer under Section 59A(3) of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the State of West Bengal and the said order will prevail over the interim order of custody of the vehicle passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the provision of Indian Forest Act, 1927 can be invoked for confiscation of the vehicle seized for commission of the offence under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. By referring to some provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and some provisions of the Wild Life (Pro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
