PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR. versus J.K. JOHNSON & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1144 · Decided: 17-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1144 
PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR. 
v. 
J.K. JOHNSON & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2534 of 2011) 
OCTOBER 17, 2011 
[R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972: 
c 
Object of its enactment - Discussed. 
s.54(1) - Power of specified officer to order forfeiture of 
seized items - Held: A specified officer empowered u/s.54(1) 
of the Act as amended by the Wild Life (Protection) 
Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003) to compound 
D offences, has no power, competence or authority to order 
forfeiture of the seized items on composition of the offence 
by a person who is suspected to have committed offence 
against the Act - Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 
E 
F 
(Act 16 of 2003). 
s.39(1)(d) - Applicability of- Held: Is applicable if there 
is categorical finding about the use of seized items for 
commission of offence and not where seized items were 
suspected to have been used for committing offence. 
s.39(1)(d) and s.51(2) - Distinction between. 
s.54(2) - Prior to 'and after amendment - Held: s.54(2) 
of the 1972 Act, prior to the amendment by Act 16 of 2003, 
authorized the empowered officer, on payment of value of the 
G property liable to be forfeited, to release the seized property, 
other than the government property- The provision underwent 
changes w.e.f. April 1, 2003 and the provision for release of 
the $eized property was deleted - By deletion of the provision 
for release of the seized property, it cannot be said that the 
H 
1144 
PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & 1145 
ANR. v. J.K. JOHNSON & ORS. 
Parliament intended to confer power on the specified officer A 
to order forfeiture of the seized property which is nothing but 
one form of penalty in the context of the 1972 Act - Had the 
Parliament intended to do so, it would have made an express 
provision in that regard - Such donferment of power of penalty 
upon the specified officer can'not be read by implication in 
B 
s. 54(2) - A/so any power of forfeiture conferred upon Executive 
authority merely on suspicion or accusation.may amount to 
depriving a person of his property without authority of law -
Such power cannot be readily read by relying on the 
Statement of Objects and Reasons (Act 16 of 2003) without c 
any express provision in the statute - Interpretation of statutes. 
s.54(2) - Composition of the offence under - Held: The 
composition of the offence uls.54 is not during the course of 
trial or in the trial of a compoundable offence - Compounding 
u/s.54 is a departmental compounding and does not amount D · 
to an acquittal - s.54(2) provides that on payment of money 
to the empowered officer, the suspected person, if in custody, 
shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of 
the offence shall be taken against such person - In terms 'of · 
sub-section (2) of s. 54, therefore; on composition of the 
E 
offence, the suspected person is saved from criminal 
prosecution, and from being subjected to further proceedings 
in respect of the offence. 
Forfeiture and seizure - Connotation of and distinction 
F 
between - Discussed. 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Reference to the 
Statement of Objects and Reasons - Held: The reference to 
the Statement of Objects and Reasons is for understanding 
the enactment and the purpose is to ascertain the conditions 
G 
prevailing at the time the Bill was introduced and the objects 
sought to be achieved by the proposed amendment - The 
Statement of Objects and Reasons is not ordinarily used to 
determine the true meaning of the substantive provisions· of 
H 
1146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 12 S.C.R. 
A the statute - As an aid to the construction of a statute, the 
Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill, 
ordinarily must be avoided - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
8 instant appeal was whether a specified officer 
empowered under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life 
(Protection) Act, 1972 as amended by the Wild Life 
(Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003), to 
compound offences, has power, competence and 
C authority, to order forfeiture of the seized items, on 
payment of a sum of money by way of composition of the 
offence by a person who is suspected to have committed 
offence against the Act. 
D 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HE.LO: 1. A specified officer empowered under 
Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as 
ame

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