1990 Supreme(MP) 586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
B.C. Varma, D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Santosh Kumar Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
M.P. No. 1633 of 1982 (J)
Decided On : 28-07-1990

Headnote:(1) Forest Act, 1927 – S. 55(1) – forest offence committed by transporting teak wood – vehicle cannot be confiscated.

       (2) Forest (Amendment) Act, 1983 (M.P.) – provisions under – are not retrospective.

        Short Note

       1. The Divisional Forest Officer, North Mandla Division, Mandla seized the petitioner's truck in exercise of powers under section 54 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act No. 16 of 1927). The contention is that he has no such jurisdiction and the prayer is for release of that truck. The contention finds support from a Division Bench decision of this Court, in Swaroopchandra vs. State of M.P. AIR 1984 M.P. 7. The Division Bench has ruled that there is no provision of law under which the truck in question, (in that case) could be confiscated. The law stated therein is that where a truck carrying teak wood was found to have committed an offence no forest offence as contemplated by section 55(1) of Central Act (the Indian Forest Act) could be said to have been committed and the truck could not be held liable to confiscation under section 55(1) of the Central Act. The same view was re – affirmed by another Division Bench of this Court in Ahmadji vs. State of M.P. 1985 JLJ 482, which relied upon a decision of Allahabad High Court in Empress of India vs. Nathu Khan, (1882) ILR 4 All. 417 and yet another decision of Calcutta High Court in Aiunddi Sheikh vs. Queen Empress, (1900) ILR 27 Cal. 450. This later Division Bench also took into account the local amendment in sections 52 to 54 of the Indian Forest Act by the Indian Forest (M.P. Amendment) Act, 1983. It was observed that in view of that local amendment which came into force from 1.11.1983, the authorised forest officer can confiscate the forest produce and the vehicle used for committing the forest offence. That action is subject to appeal and revision to the Conservator of Forests and to the Court of Sessions, respectively. The amendment, however, has been held and in our opinion, rightly, not to apply retrospectively. In that case, the seizure of the truck was prim to 1.11.1983, i.e. before that local amendment came into force and, therefore, it was held that the Divisional Forest Officer could not confiscate the truck. We were told at the Bar that this decision is assailed in appeal before the Supreme Court which is pending disposal. We would have awaited for the disposal of that appeal but the long pendency of this petition from the year 1982 compels us to take a decision ourselves.

       2. We find that, in the present case, the vehicle in question was seized arid then confiscated on or about 7/10.7.1982, vide order Annexure – E, i.e. prior to 1.11.1983. That being so, the order confiscating the vehicle in question must be held without the authority of law and must be quashed. AIR 1984 MP 7, 1985 JLJ 482, (1882) ILR 4 All. 417 and (1900) ILR 27 Cal. 450 relied on. Petition allowed.