STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. versus GOVIND SINGH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 03-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. 
v. 
GOVIND SINGH 
DECEMBER 3, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Forest Law : 
Indian Forest Act, 1977 (as amended by Bihar Act, 9 of 1990) 
Sections 52(3) and 68-Confiscation of vehicle-Release of-By 
imposition of fine in lieu of confisr;ation-Permissibility of-A track found 
loaded with coal in a protected forest area was confiscated-High Court 
ordered release of vehicle on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation holding 
A 
B 
c 
that power to impose fine in lieu of confiscation could be read into under D 
S.52(3)-Correctness of-Held,: When forest offence under S.2(3) is committed, 
it is not the value of the forest produce which is relevant but the value 
of the article liable for confiscation-Therefore, the vehicle may be released 
on payment of the value of the vehicle and not otherwise-Hence, High 
court not justified in reading into S. 52(3) the power ta direct release of 
vehicle by imposing fine in lieu of confiscation. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
'::asus Omissus-Literal construction-Principle of-Held: Where the 
"language" of the statute is clear, intention of the legislature is to be F 
gathered from the language used-A construction which requires for its 
support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of 
words as meaningless has to be avbided-Causus omissus cannot be 
supplied by the Court except in case of clear necessity. 
The respondent's truck was found loaded with 11.8 tones of coal G 
in a protected forest area. The Divisional Forest Officer directed 
confiscation of the truck. However, the High Court directed release of 
the vehicle on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation holding that _the 
power to impose fine in lieu of confi~cation can be read into under 
Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Hence the appeal. 
H 
651 
652 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Single Judge by the impugned judgment held that 
though the power to levy fine in lieu of confiscation is not there, the same 
has to be read into Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 to fully 
B effectuate the legislative intent. It was a case of casus omissus. The 
conclusion is clearly erroneous. It is against the settled principles relating 
to statutory interpretation. 1658-C-D) 
c 
2. When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, 
i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are 
bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. The 
intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language 
used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said 
as also to what has not been said. 1658-E) 
D 
JP. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 5 sec 134, relied on. 
E 
3. A construction which requires for its support addition or 
substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless 
has to be avoided. The Court cannot reframe the legislation for the very 
good reason that it has no power to legislate. (658-F-G) 
State of MP. v. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, AIR (1991) SC 772; State 
of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel, JT (1998) 2 SC 253 and JP. 
Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, 12003] 5 SCC 134, relied on. 
F 
Crawford v. Spooner, (1846) 6 Moore PC I, referred to. 
4. Where, therefore, the "language" is clear, the intention of the 
Legislature is to be gathered from the language used. What is to be 
borne in mind is as to what has been said in the statute as also what has 
not been said. A construction which requires for its support addition or 
G substitution of words or which results in rejection of words, has to be 
avoided, unless it is covered by the rule of exception, including that of 
necessity, which is not the case here. 
[660-C-D~EJ 
Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested 
H Forests, AIR (1990) SC 1747; Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal 
.. 
STATE v. GOVIND SINGH 
653 
Corpn., AIR (1966) SC 1678; A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, A 
[1984) 2 SCC 500; State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese, (1986) 4 SCC 746; 
Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR (1992) SC 96 and J.P.' 
Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, [2003) 5 SCC 134, relied on. 
5. Two principles of construction -
one relating to casus omissus 
and the other in regard to reading the statue as a whole -
appear to B 
be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omiss 11s cannot be 
suppl

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