1. Seizure and confiscation of a vehicle used for illegal transport of forest produce under the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 550
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. V. RAMANA, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SMT. KALLO BAI – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8861 of 2014)
Decided On : 08-05-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal and confiscation proceedings are different, distinct and parallel.
Criminal and confiscation proceedings are different, distinct and parallel.
Subject
Confiscation - Forest Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 – Section 15(C) and (D) – Authorized Officer empowered to confiscate seized forest produce satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed – Such satisfaction ousts jurisdiction of Magistrate for dealing with interim custody/release of the seized materials under the Cr. P.C. gives way – If the Authorized Officer is vested with power of seizure and confiscation under the Act, the Magistrate has no power to pass any order dealing with interim custody/release of the seized material. (Para 17)
(b) Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 – Section 15(D) – Applies where only conviction has been ordered without confiscation u/s 15 – Confiscation can be ordered u/s 15(D) after conviction, (Para 19)
(c) Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 – Section 15 – Concerned authority empowered to confiscate the articles, even before the guilt is completely established – Protection to owners of the vehicles/articles – On proving that they took all reasonable care and precautions, and the said offence was committed without their knowledge or connivance – Criminal and confiscation proceedings – Different, distinct and parallel. (Para 24, 25)
(1985) 4 SCC 573; (2002) 1 SCC 495; (2004) 4 SCC 448 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
A tractor and trailer was confiscated for illegal transportation of teak wood along with the wood.
Appeal thereagainst was dismissed.
In revision the Addl. Sessions Judge held that unless the guilt is proved, confiscation was without jurisdiction.
Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
It was wrong for the High Court to conclude that confiscation under the law was not permissible unless the guilt of the accused is completely established.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether confiscation of a vehicle under the Adhiniyam is permissible during the pendency of a criminal case without a prior finding of guilt. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Confiscation proceedings under Section 15 are quasi-judicial and independent of criminal prosecution, aimed at speedy adjudication of the means used to commit forest offences. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. Power of confiscation under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam is independent of criminal prosecution and does not require the prior establishment of the accused's guilt. (Para 24 , 26 )
5. Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court set aside. (Para 27 )
6. Are confiscation proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969, dependent on the outcome of criminal prosecution?
No. Confiscation proceedings under Section 15 are quasi-judicial and independent of criminal prosecution. The power to confiscate is based on the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer and does not require the guilt of the accused to be established in a criminal trial. (Para 15 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
7. Does a Magistrate have the power to order the interim release of property seized under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam?
No. Where the power to confiscate is vested in the Authorized Officer under the Act, the general power of the Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. for interim custody or release gives way to ensure proper implementation of the Act. (Para 17 )
8. What is the distinction between confiscation under Section 15 and Section 15-D of the Adhiniyam?
Section 15 allows for independent quasi-judicial confiscation based on the Authorized Officer's satisfaction. Section 15-D provides for confiscation upon conviction by a criminal court, provided separate confiscation proceedings under Section 15 have not already resulted in confiscation. (Para 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed assailing the judgment, dated 21.01.2014, in M.Cr.C No. 12750/2013, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, wherein the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant State by upholding the order of the lower court, which through its order directed to release the confiscated vehicle during the pendency of the main criminal case.
3. Brief facts of the case in nut shell are that the respondent is the owner of the tractor bearing number (MP-22 AA-0736) and trolley bearing number (MP 22 AA 0764). On 03.1.2012 while this vehicle was being used to transport 1.054 cubic meters of teak wood from Saliwara to Parasia Road, Reserve Forest Compartment No. 117. As the driver was not carrying the documents required for the transportation of teak wood, the staff of Forest Development Corporation, at Dhuma District, Seoni, after completion of formalities seized the teakwood and the aforesaid vehicle, being tractor (MP-22 AA-0736) and trolley (MP 22 AA 0764). Thereafter, the Project Range Officer registered the offence under Section 5 and Section 15 of Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 [hereinafter ‘Adhiniyam’ for brevity] read with Section 26 and Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The said case was registered as Offence No. 251/2013. In relation to this, a charge sheet was filed which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 269/2013 before the trial court.
4. The Authorized Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer Lakhnadone, Forest Division North (territorial), Seoni simultaneously initiated the confiscation proceeding under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam. The same was registered as Confiscation Case No. 9/2012.
5. In the process, the Authorized Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer Lakhnadone, Forest Division North (territorial), Seoni, ordered confiscation of tractor (MP-22 AA-0736) and trolley (MP 22 AA 0764) and teak wood. The Authorized Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer held that the vehicle operator and his companion had deliberately transported the teak wood without the requisite permit or any valid document. Further, he held that the owner was aware of the said illegal transport.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Conservator of Forest, Seoni Circle, Seoni (M.P), who in turn dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the authority below by order dated 06.12.2012.
7. The respondent having been unsatisfied with the order dated 6-11-2012 preferred revision before the additional sessions judge, Seoni, under Section 15-B of the Adhiniyam. The additional sessions judge, Seoni, by judgment dated 18.07.2013, allowed the revision and quashed the order of confiscation and directed to release the vehicle. Moreover the court was of the view that unless the guilt of the accused is proved, there cannot be any confiscation of the vehicle and the forest produce. The reasoning of the first revisional court is extracted as under:
14. As such, the order of Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Officer dated 09.04.2012 and order of Appellate Authority and Designated Conservator of Forests dated 06.12.2012 in Appeal No. 7/2012 are violation of Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and also Adhiniyam, 1969. The Sub Divisional Forest officer lakhnadon and Appellate Authority without holding accused guilty in criminal case no. 269/2012 had no right to confiscate the vehicle and forest produce.
(emphasis supplied)
8. The State challenged the aforesaid order of the additional sessions judge, Seoni, dated 18.07.2013, by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being M.Cr.C No. 12750/2013 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court, by order dated 21.01.2014, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/state and affirmed the order of the lower court. Aggrieved by the order of the
