STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus SUJIT KUMAR RANA

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 870 · Decided: 20-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
SUJJT KUMAR RANA 
JANUARY 20, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 482. 
Exercise of power under-Jurisdiction of Criminal Court barred under 
C S. 59G of the Forest Act, 1927-However, High Court, exercising jurisdiction 
under S. 482, in a confiscation proceeding under the Act, ordered interim 
release of the vehicle-Correctness of-Held: Once a confiscation proceeding 
was initiated under the act jurisdiction of the criminal court stood excluded-
Hence, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under S. 482-However, High 
D Court could exercise such a power only in exercise of its power of judicial 
review. 
Exercise of power under-Held: High Court could exercise power under 
S. 482 in relation to a molter pending before a "court"-Such a "court" in 
the context of Cr.P.C. would mean a "criminal court" or whence the power 
E was exercised by the court under Cr.P.C. 
Forest Act, 1927: 
Ss. 50A to 59G (inserted by lhe State amendment)-Sei:rnre and 
confiscation-Object of provisions-Held: To preserve the forests so as to 
F maintain ecological balance-Such provisions should be liberally construed-
Since illegal seizure amounted to deprivation of property and the owner thereof 
~ 
was deprived of the right of property, therefore, the rights of the parties must 
be de/icate~y balanced-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 48A, 51-A{g) and 
300. 
G 
Section 59-A--Confiscation of vehicle-Used lo carry fores/ produce 
H 
wilhout valid transil permission-Scope and ambit of-Held: ls discrelionary-
However, sufficient safeguards existed againsl arbitrary exercise of power-
ls neither a penalty nor a punishment. 
870 
ST ATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SU.IIT KUMAR RANA 
871 
Section 59-8-Confiscation proceedings-Commencement of-Held: A 
Commenced after issue of notice under S. 59-G. 
Section 59-0(2)-0rder of confiscation-Appeal against-Held: Only 
an order of the appellate court became final and binding-But such an order 
would not preclude the aggrieved person from moving the High Court in 
judicial review-Constitlllion of India, 1950, Art. 226. 
B 
Section 59-8-/ssue of notice-Appellate court set aside confiscation 
proceedings on the ground that notice was invalid-However, the appel/a/e 
court directed the authorities to decide /he mailer afresh in accordance with 
law-Correctness of-Held: Valid proceeding for confiscation of lhe vehicle 
could be initiated only upon issuance of a proper notice-Whereafter an order C 
of confiscation could be passed in accordance with law. 
The respondent's truck carrying forest produce without transit 
permit was confiscated and seized. The District Judge quashed the order 
of confiscation on the ground that the notice issued to the respondent under D 
Section 59-B (as inserted by the State amendment) of the Forest Act, 1927 
was invalid. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the 
respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
and ordered interim release of the respondent's truck. Hence the appeals. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the High Court had no 
jurisdiction to exercise an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view E 
of Section 59-G (as inserted by the State amendment) which excluded the 
jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of proceedings initiated under 
the Act. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The State legislature has inserted Sections 50-A to 50-G 
in the Forest Act, 1927 with a laudable object. Forest is a national wealth, 
which is required to be preserved. In most of the cases, the State is the 
owner of the forests and forest produce. Depletion of forests would lead 
F 
to ecological imbalance. It is now well-settled that the State is enjoined G 
with a duty to preserve th'e forests so as to maintain ecological balance 
and, thus, with a view to achieve the said object forests must be given due 
protection. Statutes, which provide for protection of forests to maintain 
ecological balance, should receive liberal construction at the hands of the 
superior courts. Interpretive exercise of such power should be in 
consonance with the provisions of such statutes not only having regard to H 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 1 S.C.R. 
A the principle of purposive construction so as to give effect to the aim and 
ob,iect of the legislature; keeping the principles contained in Article 48-A 
and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India in min

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