THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. versus KEDAR SAO AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 25-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r
( 
A 
THE ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
L 
v. 
KEDAR SAO AND ANR. 
AUGUST 25, 2003 
., 
\.--
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Amendments made thereunder by the Bihar 
Amendment Act 9 of 1990; Section 52/Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of 
c 
Trade) Act, 1984; Sections 15 and 32: 
• 
Seizure of illicit forest produce with trucks-Authority ordered 
confiscation of trucks-Affirmed by the Appellate Authority-On appeal, High 
Court quashed the order holding that the authorities had no power under the 
Indian Forest Act lo confiscate the vehicle-Exercise of power by the authorities 
s-
D under the Bihar Amendment Act; vis-a-vis the Central Act-Held: The object 
underlying these Acis are distinct and separate-Nature of offences under 
Acts are wholly different-Thus, the provisions of law under the Central Act 
and amendments made thereunder on the one side and' Trade Act on the other 
~
could co-exist-The provisions contained in Section 32 of the Trade Act are 
exclusionary in nature rendering the relevant provisions under the Central 
E Act inapplicable to specified forest produce-The provisions under the Trade 
1,,! 
Act cannot be construed to be destructive of the powers conferred upon the 
authorities under the Central Act-The State Legislature cannot be denied 
power to enact different provisions in separate Acts or conferring distinct and 
separate powers upon more than one authority to meet any exigencies-High 
F Court.erred in overlooking the special procedure under the Bihar Amendment 
Act empowering the authorities with more comprehensive/stringent powers for 
confiscation of the property to the exclusion of the Courts/Tribunals-The 
power conferred on the authority cannot be curtailed/circumscribed-Hence, 
order of the High Court cannot be countenanced-Interpretation of Statutes-
Constitution of India, 1950, Seventh Schedule. 
G 
Words and Phrases: 
Jorest produce', 'confiscation' and 'seizure '-Meaning of-Jn the context 
of Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act and Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation 
of Trade) Act. 
H 
974 
ST A TE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO 
975 
On receipt of information, Forest Officers chased trucks of the A 
respondents and seized illicit forest produce with trucks under Section 52 
of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act and submitted prosecution 
reports against the respondents. Authority ordered confiscation of the 
seized trucks. Appeals by the respondents/private parties were rejected 
by the Appellate Authority. In the writ petitions filed by the respondents, B 
High Court quashed the order of confiscation holding that the authorities 
had no power under the Central enactment (Indian Forest Act) to 
confiscate the vehicle and that the order passed by the authority was 
without jurisdiction. In another matter, Forest Officers seized 8 trucks 
with forest woods and submitted a report to the authority. The authority 
ordered confiscation of the illegal woods with trucks. Appellate authority C 
rejected the appeal. The writ petition and writ appeal were dismissed by 
the High Court. Hence the present appeals by the State and the private 
parties. 
It was contended for the State that the Bihar Forest Produce 
(Regulation of Trade) Act was enacted for regulation in public interest D 
and the Indian Forest Act was amended by the Indian Forest (Bihar 
Amendment) Act for the overall protection, management and to regulate 
transit of the Forest produce; that the authority did not commit any 
irregularity in passing the confiscation order; that Section 15 of the Trade 
Act stood repealed by necessary implication by the Indian Forest (Bihar E 
Amendment) .(\ct, thus, impliedly the authority could apply the provisions 
of the Indian Forest Act to the specified forest produce. 
On behalf of the private parties, it was contended that Section 32 of 
the Trade Act excluded the applicability of the relevant provisions of the 
Indian Forest Act in respect of the Forest produce as specified in the Trade F 
Act and thus, Section 15 of the Trade Act was attracted and that the 
authority could take action under the Trade Act only. 
Allowing the appeals of the State and dismissing the appeals of the 
private parties, the Court 
HELD:l.1. The High Court not only misdirected itself as to the 
nature of offence but also misconstrued the relevant provisions of the 
Trade Act and ignored certain vitally important provisions contained in 
G 
the Bihar Amendment Act 9of1990. A proper c

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