BISWABAHAN DAS versus GOPEN CHANDRA HAZARIKA & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 21-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO, J.M. SHELAT, G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BISW ABAHAN DAS 
v. 
GOPEN CHANDRA HAZARIKA & ORS. 
September 21, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J. M. SHELAT AND G. M. MITTER, JJ.] 
Assam Forest Regulation 7 of 1891, s. 62'-Effect of compoundiTlfl 
forest offence-If results in acquittal. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act S of 1898), ~. 345(6)--Scop•. 
Certlorar~Board of Revenue-Grant of e:i:cise licence--Conslderotlort 
of conduct in rendering compensation for forest offence and suitability-
lf writ lies. 
Tho settlement Of an excise shop in Dibrugarh area with tho respon-
dent was challenged before the Board of Revonuo in an appeal by tho 
appellant. The Board held that the respondent was not a suitable person 
because as a forest contractor and holder of a firewood mahal licence, he 
had compounded an offence of illegally felling green trees by paying com-
pensation. The respondent filed a writ potition and tho High Court relied 
on s. 345 ( 6) Cr. P .C. 
in holding that the compounding of the offence 
had tho .effect of an acquittal with tho result that once tho offenco was 
compounded the Board was not entitled to take into account the propriety 
or otherwiso of the conduct of the respondent. In appeal to this Court. 
the appellant contended that (i) s. 345(6) Cr.P.C., 
had no application 
to an offence under the &sam Forest Regulation 7 of 1891, and (ii) that 
the Board was right in considering the respondent's conduct in rendering 
compensation for a forest offence. 
HELD. Tho appeal must be allowed._ 
(i) The High Court was not right in coming to tho conclusion that 
tho effect of s. 62 of tho &sam Regulation was tho same as that ot 
s. 345(6) Cr. P.C. and that no moral turpitude of any discription could 
be. said to be involved in the case. 
In effect the payment of compensa-
tion . by the respondent amounted to his acceptance of tho charge against 
him. 
Section 62(2) of the Assam Regulation only protected him with 
regard to further proceeding, but had not the effect of clearing his charac-
ter or vindicating his conduct. 
[451 A-B; 452 BJ 
U a person is charged with an offence, then unlesa !hero Ii aomo pro-
vision for compounding of it the Jaw must tako its courso and the charao 
enquired intn resulting either in conviction or acquittal.. It tho cmnposition 
of an offence was permh;.sibl~ in law, the effeCt of such composition would 
depend on what the Jaw provided tor. If the effect of composition is to 
amount to an acquittal then it may bo said that no stigma should attach to 
the Character of the person, but unless it is expressly provided for the 
mere rendering of compensation would not IJDOUDt to tho vindication Of 
the character of the person charged with the offence. [451 HJ 
(ii) The High Court was not justified in quashing the appellate order 
of the Board under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Board . had not 
gone wrong in Jaw in considering the respondent's conduct. in rendering 
compensation for a forest offence. 
The Board therefore could be said 
to have exceeded its jurisdiction under the Jaw or committed an error 
apparent on the face of the record. [453 AJ 
Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. v. The Commissioner of Hills Divlswn 
and Appeals, Astam & Ors. [1958] S.C.R. · 1240, followed. 
447 
HS 
SUPllEMB COURT REPORTS 
[I 967] 1 s.c.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 24, 1964 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in 
Civil Ruic No. 208 of 1964. 
Sarjoo Prasad, H. Goswami and D. N. Mukherjee, for the 
appellant. · 
R. Gopa/akrishnan, for. respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment 
and order of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland dated January 
24, 1964 passed in Civil Rule No. 208 of 1964 under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution of India. 
The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the High 
Court was right in quashing the order of the Board of Revenue 
on the ground that the very basis on which the appellate order of 
the Board was founded did not exist and that the Board had gone 
wrong in taking into consideration the compounding of an offence 
under the Forest 
Regulation by the petitioner before the High 
Court as affecting his suitability in getting settlement of an excise 
shop in Dibrugarh area. 
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as fol. 
lows. One Biswabahan Das, the appellant before us, was the 
lessee of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.