The judiciary has the power to read words in a statute which are not there, in order to implement the real intention of the legislature. This power should be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the alternative lies between supplying words by implication and adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meaning.

HANSARIA, J.

( 1 ) TERSELY put, we have been called upon in this case to decide "whether the judiciary can also legislate; if so, when and to what extent?" The question as posed above may sound to many ears as novel, strange and a clear attempt to usrup the power of the legislature. But from what is being stated later, it would appear that it is not so.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid question, however, requires our examination because in this case a truck found involved in committing a forest offence was ordered to be confiscated by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, which order having been affirmed in appeal, has been challenged in this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we felt that on the facts of the case, confiscation of the truck is not merited and so we suggested that in lieu of confiscation we propose to impose fine. This suggestion was given keeping in view the judgments of this Court rendered in O. J. C. No. 3105 of 1988 (Narendra Singh v. Authorised Officer, disposed of on 15-11-1988), which was followed in O. J. C. No. 3265 of 1988 (N. V. Gopalaswamy v. Assistant Conservator of Forests) disposed of on 11-9-1990 and O. J. C. No. 4224 of 1989 (State of Orissa v. Laxmidhar Rath, disposed of on 17-10-1990), in all of which cases fine was imposed in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. Shri Mohanty appearing for the petitioner faintly submitted that as S. 56 (2a) of the Orissa Forests Act, 1972, which is the relevant provision, only permits confiscation and does not speak of imposition of fine, it would not be permissible for this Court to impose fine in a case attracting the aforesaid provision. Though in the aforesaid cases fine had been imposed after setting aside the order of confiscation, but as the permissibility of the same had not been questioned, this Court had not applied its mind to this aspect of the case, which has become necessary to do so in the present case in view of the aforesaid contention of Shri Mohanty.

( 3 ) BEFORE we answer the aforesaid loaded, complicated and important question, it would be apposite to say as to why we thought of imposing fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. To know this, we have to know the facts of the case.

( 4 ) WHAT had happened was that the truck of the petitioner was found at Vochibahal checkgate, which is in the district of Sambalpur, to have been carrying dry

and processed Kendu leaf bags. The petitioner is said to have been himself driving the vehicle. At the checkgate, the petitioner produced some documents showing authority to transport the Kendu leaves from Purjang (in the district of Dhenkanal) to Bombay. The Forest Official who was in charge of the checkgate suspected the genuineness of the documents and after having done some checking, he contacted the Range Officer, who also smelt something wrong and so rushed to the spot to find that the petitioner had disappeared leaving the truck. This strengthened the suspicion, because of which the truck was brought inside the compound of the Range Office. Further enquiries were made thereafter, and it was found that the permit in question authorising transportation as aforesaid was forged which assured the minds of the officers that the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of the Kendu leaves from Purjang to Bombay. This led to the initiation of the confiscation proceeding, which ultimately terminated against the petitioner, whose appeal did not yield fruit.

( 5 ) SHRI Mohanty first raised a point that there being nothing to show that there was inter-district movement of Kendu leaves in the present case, no offence under the aforesaid Act had been committed. This submission was advanced keeping in mind a recent decision of this Court in O. J. C. No. 1824 of 1984 disposed of on 17-8-1990 (reported in AIR 1991 NOC 52), in which it was held that the penal provisions of the Act would get attracted only in case of inter-district transfer of Kendu leaves. It was