DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFLCER. & ANR versus G.V. SUDHAKAR RAO & ORS.,

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 31-10-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

680 
A 
DIVISIONAL FOlll!ST OFFlCE8. & Alill.. 
Vo 
G.V. SUOOAIAR HAO & OBS, 
OCTOBER 31, 1985 
B 
(A,P, SEN AND D,P, MADON, JJ,] 
Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, ss. 44, 45 & 58A read with 
ss. 20 and 29 - Power vested in the Authorised Officer to direct 
confiscation of seized timber or forest produce u/s,44 (2A) and 
the power of Magistrate to direct confiscation of such property 
c 
on conviction of the accused -
Whether separate and distinct 
powers - Stay of proceedings for confiscation of seized forest 
produce before the Authorised Officer - Whether permissible when 
criminal case is pending against the accused in respect of the 
same forest offence or when accused is acquitted of the offence. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, ss. 451, 452 and 457 - Power of 
D 
_Criminal Court to dispose of property - Scope of. 
The Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad, Nirmal seized teak 
timber valued at Ra. 1,71,000 from the residential house of 
respondent no. l and produced the same before the Divisional 
Forest Officer, Hyderabad who is the Authorised Officer under 
E 
s.44 (2A) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 along with a report under 
sulMl.(2) thereof that he had reason to believe that a forest 
offence had been colllllitted, for purpoaes of confiscation of the 
seized timber under sulMI. (2A) of s. 44 of the Act. While the 
confiscation proceedings were pending before the Authorised 
Officer UDder s. 44(2A) in relation to the seized timber, the 
F 
Forest Range Officer si1111ltaneously lodged a complaint with the 
Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for trial of 
the respondents for collllllission of offences punishable under s. 
20(l)(c)(iv) and (x) and s. 20(l)(d) read withs. 29(4)(a)(ii) of 
the Act, 
The respondents moved the High Court under s, 482 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963 for stay of the confiscation 
G 
proceedings before the Authorised Officer under s. 44(2A) of the 
Act in view of the pending criminal prosecution. 
Upon the view 
that the power of the Authorised Officer to direct confiscation 
under sub-a. (2A) of s. 44 of the Act and that of the Metropoli-
tan Magistrate under s. 45 of the Act were mtually exclusive and 
therefore there cc.>l!ld not be sillllltaneous proceedings for conf is-
H 
cation before the Authorised Officer under s. 44(2A) as slao 
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER v. G. V. SUDllAKAR RAC' 
681 
prosecution of the respondents for comida•ion of a foreat offence 
A 
under s. 20 or 29 of the Act, a learned Single Judge by tile 
impugned order directed stay of 
the proceeding• .before the 
Authoriaed Officer under B• 44(2A) till the diapoaal of tba 
criminal case by the Metropolitan Magistrate. 
Allowing the appeal, 
B 
llELD:l, The power of the Authorised Officer to direct 
confiscation of the seized timber or forest produce and the 
implements etc. under sub-s.(2A} of s.44 of tba Act prodaad 
before him by the Forest Range Officer along with a report UDder 
sub-9.(2) thereof, if the Authorised Officer ia satisfied that a 
C 
forest offence bas been commi~ted in respect thereof, and tba 
power of the Magistrate to direct confiscation of such pzoperty 
under s, 45 upon conviction of the accused for comiaaion of a 
forest offence under s. 20 or 29 of the Act, are separate and 
distinct and there is no overlapping of the aame. 
The change& 
brought about by Act No.17 of 1976 clearly contemplate for two 
D 
separate proceedings before two independent forwas. 
l'bere is no 
conflict of jurisdiction as s.45, as amended by the AgendM!J~ 
Act, in terms curtails the power of the Magiatrate to direct 
confiscation of the seized tilllber or forest produce on conviction· 
of the accused, by the use of the words 'except where an order 
for confiscation has already been passed in respect thereof under 
E 
s. 44' inserted in s.45 of the Act. 
2, The High Court was in error in holding that there could 
aot be silllll.taneous proceedings for confiscation before the 
Authorised Officer under sub-s.(2A) of s.44 of the Act and prose-
cution of the accused for comission of forest offences under 
s.20 or 29 of .the Act. 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
of 1985. 
Criminal Appeal No. 752 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.83 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Crl. Misc. Petn. No. 1810 of 1983, 
G 
K. Parasaran, Attorney General and G. Narashimulu 
for the 
Appellants. 
P. Ram Reddy .. nd A.v.v. Nair for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.