STATE OF M.P. versus S.P. SALES AGENCIES AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 29-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-»-.. 
A 
STA TE OF M.P. 
v. 
S.P. SALES AGENCIES AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 2004 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Indian Forest Act, 1927: Ss. 2, ./I, ./2, 52 and 76/Madhya Pradesh 
~I 
Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961; Section 3/Code of Criminal Procedure, 
c 1973: Section ./82: 
Accused tra11.1porti11g 'kattha' and 'cutch' without transit pass-Seizure 
of-Authority ordering confiscation of the goods treating them as forest 
produce-Appellate Authority remanded the matter back-Authority again 
arrived at the same findings-Affirmed by Appellate Attthority-Revision 
D petitions admilled by Sessions Court-Petitions for quashing order of seizure 
of the goods and the confiscation proceeding-Alloll'ed by High Cuurt holding 
... 
that :he sei:ed goods were not forest produce and since criminai prosecution 
~
was not launched pursuant lo the sei=ure, confiscation proceeding rould not 
have been initiated-On appeal, Held: Ka/Iha and cutch being manufactured 
E 
ji'OJ11 log of wood of Khair tree/acacia tree, falls within the definition of 
catechu, a forest produce-Condition precedent for initiating confiscation 
proceeding is commission of forest offence and not launching of prosecution 
(/gains/ accused-Since forest offence was committed, confiscation proceeding 
has right(1 1 been initiated by the alllhority against the accused-Hence, High 
Court erred in reversing the order of the Authorities. 
~ 
F 
The questions which arose for consideration in these appeals were as 
to whether 'Kattha' and 'cutch' are forest produce and as to whether 
confiscation procecd.ing could be initiated only after launching of criminal 
prosecution or it is open to the Forest Authorities upon seizure of forest 
produce to initiate both or either. 
G 
It was contended by the appellant that Catechu is a forest produce and 
kattha and cutch both form part of it. 
~ 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
640 
STA TE OF M.I'. v. S.P. SALES AGENCIES 
641 
HELO: I.I. Catechu means any of the \'arious dry, earthy or resinous A 
,1strin3ent substances extracted from wood, leal'es or fruits of l'arious tropical 
Asiatic plants, viz. acacia and other trees and shrubs. Khair tree is one of the 
types of acacia tree and log of wood of the said tree is basic raw material for 
the manufacture of kattha and cutch. After employing series of activities to 
the log of khairwood, various substances, namely, cutch and kattha etc. are B 
extracted. Hence, cutch and kattha come within the sweep of expression 
'catechu' which has been enumerate!! in the definition of forest produce. Thus, 
q 
kattha and cutch are forest produce within the meaning of Section 2( 4) of 
the Act and the High Court was not justified in holding otherwise.1646-E-GI 
Himachal Pradesh Marketing Board and Ors. v. Shankar Trading Co. Pvt. C 
ltd and Ors., 1199712SCC496, referred to. 
Shorter Oxford English Dictionaiy, p. 276 and Webster's Third New 
International Dictionary, Volume I, p. 352; Chamber's Twentieth Century 
Dictionaiy compiled by Rev. Thomas Davidson and revised and expanded by J. 
Liddell Geddie, p.148; New Encyclopaedia Britanica, Volume 2, 15th Edition, D 
p. 946; Ox.ford Hindi-English Dictionary, edited by R.S. McGregor, pp. 162 and 
244 and Comprehensive English-Hindi Dictionaty of Governmental and 
Educational Words & Phrases, 4th Edition, p.14, referred to. 
1.2. The power of confiscation, exercisable under Section 52 of the Act, 
cannot be said to be in any manner dependant upon launching of criminal E 
prosecution as it has nowhere been provided therein that the forest produce 
seized can be confiscated only after criminal prosecution is launched, but the 
condition precedent for initiating a confiscation proceeding is commission of 
forest offence, which, in the case on hand, is alleged to have been committed. 
,,.. 
1647-E-FI F 
Divisional Forest Officer and Anr. v. G. V Sudhakar Rao and Ors., 119851 
4 SCC 573 and State of West Bengal v. Gopal Sarkar, 1200211 SCC 495, referred 
to. 
1.3. The stock of cutch was seized in the year 1991, but no confiscation 
proceeding has been initiated as yet. The revision application arising out of G 
the confiscation proceeding relating to the kattha seized was withdrawn more 
than eight years ago, the same having become infructuous in \'iew of the 
impugned judgment and criminal prosecution has not been launched so far 
pursuant to seizure of the stock of kattha and cutch. Hence, it is not 
appropriate to interefere with the

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