LexTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus SMT. KALLO BAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2017] 4 S.C.R. 218 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. SMT. KALLO BAI (Criminal Appeal No. 932 of2017) MAY 08, 2017 [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969: s.15 - Confiscation under - Of Tractor and Trolley and the forest produce - Appellate authority upheld the confiscation order -· Revisional Court held that confiscation was not permissible unless the guilt of the accused is fully established - High Court affirmed the order of Revisional Court - On appeal, held: Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings - The two proceedings are different and parallel, each having distinct purpose ~ The scheme of Adhiniyam prescribes an independent procedure for confiscation - Therefore, the conclusion by the Revisional Court and High Court was erroneous. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In order to facilitate development of a good forest policy, the State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. This legislation was enacted with an object to regulate the trade of certain forest prQduce in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Adhiniyam is a statute enacted for the purpose of preserving certain forest produce in the State of Madhya Pradesh.The Scheme of the Act, as expressed in several provisions, is to empower the authbrized officers of the Forest Department for proper implementation/ enforcement of the statutory provisions and for enabling them to take effective steps for preserving these forest produce. For this purpose certain powers including the power of seizure, confiscation and forfeiture have been vested in them. [Para 11] [222-F-G; 223-A]. 2. Confiscation proceedings as contemplated under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam is a quasi-judicial proceedings and not a · criminal proceedings. Confiscation proceeds on the basis of the 218 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SMT. KALLO BAI 219 'sati.sfaction' of the Authorized Officer with regard to the A commission of forest offence; [Para 15] (226-G-H; 227-A] 3. Adhiniyam as originally enacted, did not provide for separate confiscatory proceedings. Or~ginal enactment only had penal provisions. The ·newly introduced Sections from Section 15-A to 15-D were brought in line with Indian Forest Act, as B amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh to provide for a separate confiscatory mechanism. [Para 12] [223-B-C] 4. The broad scheme of the Adhiniyam is to punish those who are in contravention of the law at the hand of the criminal court. The confiscation being incidental and ancillary to the conviction, State of Madhya Pradesh, separated the process of confiscation from the process of prosecution. The purpose of the enactment seems to be that the power of the criminal court regarding the disposal of property is made subject to the jurisdiction of the authorized officer with regard to that aspect; the jurisdiction of criminal court in regard to the main trial remains unaffected. [Para 20] [229-A-B] Divisional Forest Officer And Anr. v. G V. Sudhakar And Ors. [1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 680 : 1985 (4) SCC 573; State of West.Bengal v. Gopal Sarkar [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 212 : 2002 (1) SCC 495; State of MP. v. S.P. Sales Agencies [2004] 3 SCR 640 : 2004 (4) sec 448 - relied on. 5. Section 15 gives independent power to the concerned authority to confiscate the articles, as mentioned there under, even before the guilt is completely established. This power can be exercised by the concerned officer if he is satisfied that the said objects were utilized during the commission of a forest offence. A protection is provided for the owners of the vehicles/ articles, if they are able to prove that they took all reasonable care and precautions as envisaged under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam and the said offence was committed without their knowledge or connivance. [Para 24] [230-H; 231-A-B] 6. Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. The two proceedings are different and parallel, each c D E F G H 220 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. having a dis.tinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceeding is to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the prod nee and the means used for committing the offen~e while the object of the prosecution is to punish the offender. The scheme of Adhiniyam prescribes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.