STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SWAROPCHANDRA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 684 · Decided: 24-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
SWAROPCHANDRA 
SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI AND 
G.B. PATTA,NAIK, JJ.] 
M.P. Ven Upaj Vyapar Viniyaman (Adhiniyam), 1969/ForestAc~ 1927: 
C 
Ss. 19(1)(b), 22/s.52 and 53 (as amended by State Amendment Act 9 
of 1965). 
Seizure of truck with fore st produce-Confiscation of trnck-Wlit peti-
tion-High Cowt holding that State Act did not provide for confiscation of 
truck-Appeal-Held, ss. 52 and 52-A as amended by Amendment Act 9 of 
D 1965, ·having occupied the field in respect of confiscation of vehicles etc. and 
the procedure thereunder, the Legislature had not expressly provided such 
procedure again for confiscation under the State Act-High Court erred in 
holding that by operation of s. 22, the vehicle used for transp01tation of 
specified forest produces in contravention of the State Act has excluded 
E applicability of the provisions of the Central Act as amended by State 
Amendment Act 9 of 1965 in respect of vehicles etc. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 254 'occupied field' Forest Act, 1927, ss. 52 and 53 as amended 
F 
by M.P. Amendment Act 9 of 1965 and M.P. Ven Upaj Vyapar Viniyam 
Adhiniyam, 1969-Provision for confiscation of vehicle transporting the forest 
produce in contravention of State Act-Held, in view of the fact that the Forest 
Act as amended under the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 has already 
occupied the field for confiscation of the vehicles etc. it is not necessary again 
G to provide the same procedure under the State Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1380 of 
1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.83 of the Madhya Pradesh 
H High Court Court in W.P. No. 203of1983. 
684 
STATEv. SWAROPCHAlIDRA 
685 
Sakesh Kumar for S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
A 
Sunil Gupta, S.K. Gambhir and Vivek Gambhir for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division B 
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court made on 31st March, 1983 in 
Misc. Petition No. 203 of 1983. 
The admitted facts are that since the truck bearing No. 9493 was 
found carrying 22 logs of timber on October 4, 1983 without permit, it was C 
seized on the said date by Divisional Forest Officer under the M.P. Ven 
Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, No. 9 of 1969 (for short, the 
'Act'). On October 5, 1983, a notice was issued to the driver of the truck 
whether. he was willing to have the offence compounded. The truck was 
valued at Rs. 70,000. The driver consented to the compounding of the 
offenc:e and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000 .. After following the prescribed D 
procedure, by impugned order, the truck was confiscated as the value 
thereof was not paid. The respondent challenged the power of seizure in 
the writ proceedings in the High Court. The High Court held that the Act 
did not provide the power of confiscation of the truck under Section 
19(1)(b) of the Act. By operation of Section 22 of the Act, the Central E 
Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 (for 
short, the 'Forest Act') is not applicable to the confiscation of the truck. 
The Divisional Forest Officer had not produced the truck before the 
criminal court nor did he lay any charge-sheet for prosecution of the 
offender. Therefore, the order of confiscation was without authority oflaw. 
Accordingly a direction was given to release the vehicle. Pending appeal F 
in this Court, interim direction was given to release the vehicle to the 
respondent on furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 25,000. 
The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High 
Court is correct in law? It is contended by Mr. Sakesh Kumar, learned 
counsel for the State, that Section 15 provides for the seizure. Section 19 G 
gives power to compound the offence including payment of the compensa-
tion for release of the vehicle ·seized and confiscation of specified forest 
produce. Section 22 excludes only the specified forest produce. Section 52 
of the Forest Act read with the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 gives 
power for confiscation of the vehicle or receptacle used for transportation H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
of the forest produce which includes the specified forest produce. There-
fore, there is no necessity to expressly provide in the Act, the power for 
confiscation in Section 19 of the Act of the vehicle, tools or receptacle etc. 
used for transportati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.