03/05/2024
*Important judgment on power to release vehicle/property confiscated under Forest Act*
*HIgh COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH*
*W.P. 18604/2021*
*Dilip Buidcon Ltd.*
*v.*
*Chief Conservator of Forest and others*
Date of decision: 30.09.2021
Relied:
*State of M.P. v. Uday Singh*
*(2020) 12 SCC 733*
Held:
*वन अधिनियम के तहत जब्त वाहन/संपत्ति को छोड़ने का आदेश हाईकोर्ट नहीं दे सकता, चाहे वह अनुच्छेद 226/227 के तहत हो या धारा 482 CRPC के तहत। वाहन/संपति को छोड़ने की अधिकारिता सिर्फ प्राधिकृत अधिकारी को है।*
*एक बार जब प्राधिकृत अधिकारी ने जब्ती की कार्यवाही शुरू कर दी तो मजिस्ट्रेट की धारा 451 CRPC के तहत वाहन को छोड़ने की अधिकारिता खत्म हो जाती है।*
*धारा 52-C वन अधिनियम (मध्य प्रदेश संशोधन) में यह प्रावधान है कि धारा 52(4) के अंतर्गत मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा जप्ती कार्यवाही की सूचना प्राप्त होने पर, प्राधिकृत अधिकारी, अपीलीय प्राधिकारी या सत्र न्यायालय (धारा 52, 52-A और 52-B के अंतर्गत) के अलावा किसी भी न्यायालय, न्यायाधिकरण या प्राधिकरण को उस संपत्ति के कब्जे, वितरण या निपटान के संबंध में आदेश पारित करने का अधिकार नहीं होगा, जिसके संबंध में जब्ती की कार्यवाही शुरू की गई है।*
*यदि कोई वाहन या संपत्ति वन अपराध में शामिल है और जब्त की गई है, तो उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 226/227 के तहत या वन अधिनियम 1927 में मध्य प्रदेश संशोधन के मद्देनजर धारा 482 CRPC के तहत इसकी रिहाई के लिए कोई निर्देश नहीं दिया जा सकता है।*
*भारतीय वन अधिनियम 1927 में मध्य प्रदेश अधिनियम 25, 1983 द्वारा किए गए संशोधनों के अनुसार वन उपज तथा अपराध करने में प्रयुक्त औजारों, नावों, वाहनों और वस्तुओं की जब्ती और जब्ती के संबंध में विशिष्ट प्रावधान जोड़े गए थे।*
*महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि मध्य प्रदेश अधिनियम 1983 द्वारा संशोधित वन अधिनियम 1927 के अनुसार, धारा 52-C में यह प्रावधान है कि एक बार मजिस्ट्रेट को जब्ती कार्यवाही आरंभ करने की सूचना प्राप्त होने के बाद, प्राधिकृत अधिकारी, अपीलीय प्राधिकारी या सत्र न्यायालय (धारा 52, 52-ए और 52-बी के अंतर्गत) के अलावा किसी भी न्यायालय, न्यायाधिकरण या प्राधिकरण को उस संपत्ति के कब्जे, सुपुर्दगी, निपटान या वितरण के संबंध में आदेश पारित करने का अधिकार नहीं होगा।*
*धारा 52-C(1) में एक अनिवार्य प्रावधान है जो भारतीय वन अधिनियम 1927 या किसी अन्य कानून में निहित किसी भी विपरीत बात के बावजूद लागू होता है।*
HC Can't Order Release Of Vehicle/Property Confiscated Under Forest Act R/W MP Amendments Either Under Article 226/227 Or U/S 482CrPC:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that if any vehicle or property is involved and confiscated in forest offence, no direction for its release can be given by the High Court either under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India or under S. 482 CrPC in view of Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Forest Act 1927.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi ruled thus while relying on Apex Court's ruling in the case of *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh (2020)12 SCC 733* wherein it was held once the vehicle is confiscated under the Forest Act, it cannot be released by the direction of the High Court.
The matter before the Court
The Court was hearing a writ plea filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the release of the vehicle which got confiscated in a forest offence under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that a direction for release of the vehicle under Section 451 CrPC cannot be given (in view of Uday Singh ruling), however, exercising of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, such a direction can be given by the High Court.
Forest act r/w MP amendments: a brief explanation
It may be noted that as per the amendments brought by MP Act 25 of 1983 to the Indian Forest Act 1927, specific provisions were added with regard to the seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences.
Importantly, as per the Forest Act 1927, as amended by MP Act of 1983, Section 52-C stipulates that once an intimation of the initiation of confiscation proceedings is received by the Magistrate, no court, tribunal or authority, other than an Authorised Officer, an Appellate Authority or Court of Sessions (under Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated.
Notably, Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C has a non obstante provision which operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Forest Act 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force.
The only saving is in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State government for directing the immediate release of a property seized under Section 52, as provided in Section 31.
Hence, it is quite clear that upon the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52, the bar of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted. In this regard, the Apex Court in 'Uday Singh' too, noted that at this stage, if under 482 CrPC, A direction is issued by the High Court, to the Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which has been seized, the same would be contrary to law.
Essentially, at this stage, the jurisdiction under Section 451 of the CrPC wouldn't not available to the Magistrate, since the Authorised Officer has already initiated confiscation the proceedings and therefore, 482 CrPC power can't be entertained by the High Court.
It is important to note that by isolating the confiscation of forest produce and the instruments utilised for the commission of an offence from criminal trials, the MP State legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent.
Since, the absence of effective deterrence was considered by the Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal regime, therefore, the state amendment had sought to overcome that deficiency by imposing stringent deterrents against such activities.
Court's order
Relying upon Apex Court's 'Uday Singh' ruling, the High Court noted that as per the Top Court, it specified that High Court can't direct for the release of property confiscated under Forest Act read with MP amendment under 482 CrPC, however, this limitation would be present while entertaining a writ plea under Article 226 (even though the Top court explicitly didn't say so).
Against this backdrop, the Court observed thus while dismissing the plea:
"I am not inclined to entertain this petition for the reason that the orders passed by the Court below/authorities do not suffer from any illegality and in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Singh (supra), no direction can be issued for release of vehicle confiscated in connection with forest offence."
I deem it apt to reproduce paragraph 29 of Uday Singh (Supra) for the purpose of convenience, as under:-
29. Our analysis of the amendments brought by MP Act 25 of 1983 to the Forest Act 1927 leads to the conclusion that specific provisions have been made for the seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences.
29.1 Upon a seizure under Section 52(1), the officer effecting the seizure has to either produce the property before the authorised officer or to make a report of the seizure under sub-section (2) of Section 52.
Upon being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, the authorised officer is empowered, for reasons to be recorded, to confiscate the forest produce together with the tools, vehicles, boats and articles used in its commission.
Before confiscating any property under sub-section (3), the authorised officer is required to send an intimation of the initiation of the proceedings for the confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence.
Where it is intended to immediately launch a criminal proceeding, a report of the seizure is made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence.
29.2 The order of confiscation under Section 52(3) is subject to an appeal under Section 52-A and a revision under Section 52-B.
Sub section (5) of Section 52-B imparts finality to the order of the Court of Sessions in revision notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in CrPC and provides that it shall not be called into question before any court.
29.3 Section 52-C stipulates that on the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of Section 52, no court, tribunal or authority, other than an authorised officer, an appellate authority or Court of Sessions (under Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated.
Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C has a non obstante provision which operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Forest Act, 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force.
The only saving is in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State Government for directing the immediate release of a property seized under Section 52, as provided in Section 61.
Hence, upon the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52, the bar of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted.
29.4 The scheme contained in the amendments enacted to the Forest Act, 1927 in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, makes it abundantly clear that the direction which was issued by the High Court in the present case, in a petition under Section 482 of CrPC, to the Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which had been seized, was contrary to law.
The jurisdiction under Section 451 of CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer initiated confiscation proceedings.”
The object for not releasing the confiscated vehicle in a forest offence has been enlighted by the Supreme Court in paragraph 30 of the judgment, which provides as under:-
“30. The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Forest Act, 1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose.
Protection of forests against depredation is a constitutionally mandated goal exemplified by Article 48-A of the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A(g).
By isolating the confiscation of forest produce and the instruments utilized for the commission of an offence from criminal trials, the legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent.
The absence of effective deterrence was considered by the Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal regime.
The State Amendment has sought to overcome that deficiency by imposing stringent deterrents against activities which threaten the pristine existence of forests in Madhya Pradesh.
As an effective tool for protecting and preserving environment, these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation.
For, it is only when the interpretation of law keeps pace with the object of the legislature that the grave evils which pose a danger to our natural environment can be suppressed.
The avarice of humankind through the ages has resulted in an alarming depletion of the natural environment.
The consequences of climate change are bearing down on every day of our existence.
Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to the daily assaults on the environment.” Inevitably, the observation and object of not releasing the confiscated vehicle in forest offence, makes it amply clear that the Supreme Court was not of the opinion that the order of release can be given by the High Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but merely specified that it cannot be given in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
