THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus UDAY SINGH

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 26-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
UDAY SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2019)
MARCH 26, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Forest Act, 1927: ss. 52(substituted by MP Act 25 of 1983),
52A – Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure
thereof – Seizure of tractor and trolley involved in illegal excavation
of sand from Chambal river – Confiscation proceedings initiated in
terms of s. 52(3) – Jurisdiction of the Magistrate u/s. 451 CrPC to
order interim release of the seized vehicle – Held: Procedure is
governed by ss. 52 and 52A – Magistrate has no jurisdiction u/s.
451 CrPC to direct release of the seized vehicle – Order passed by
the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC directing the Magistrate to pass orders
for interim release of the seized vehicle set aside – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – ss. 451, 482.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Forest
Act, 1927 where there is a reason to believe that a forest offence
has been committed in respect of any reserved or protected forest
or forest produce, the produce, and all tools, boats, vehicles or
articles used in committing the offence may be seized by any Forest
Officer or Police Officer. Under sub-section (2), the officer seizing
the property is required to place a mark of seizure and produce
the property before the Authorised Officer or, where it is not
practicable to produce the property seized, make a report to the
Authorised Officer. Where it is intended to launch criminal
proceedings against the offender immediately, a report of the
seizure has to be made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to
try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.
Sub-section (3) stipulates that subject to sub-section (5), the
Authorised Officer may upon being satisfied that a forest offence
has been committed upon the production of the property seized
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 154
154
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
or on the receipt of a report about the seizure, order the forest
produce so seized, together with all tools, vehicles, boats or article
used in the commission of the offence to be confiscated. No order
of confiscation can be made unless the conditions mentioned
under sub-section (4) are complied with. Those conditions are:
the Forest Officer must send an intimation in the form prescribed
about the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property
to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence; the
issuance of a notice to the person from whom the property has
been seized or any other person who appears to have an interest
in the property; Affording a reasonable opportunity of making a
representation against the proposed confiscation; and furnishing
of an opportunity of being heard to the officer effecting the seizure
and to the person to whom a notice has been given. Sub-section
(5) provides that no order for confiscation can be passed if the
person to whom a notice has been issued under clause (b) of sub-
section (4) proves that the tools, vehicles, boats or article were
used without her knowledge or connivance and that reasonable
and necessary precautions had been taken against their use for
the commission of a forest offence. [Para 9][166-D-H; 167-A-D]
1.2 Section 52-A provides an appellate remedy to a person
aggrieved to the Conservator of Forests, against an order of
confiscation. Significantly, under sub-section (4) of Section 52-A,
the Appellate Authority is empowered to pass orders of an interim
nature for the custody, preservation or disposal of the subject
matter of the confiscation. Section 52-B provides for the remedy
of a revision before the Court of Sessions against an order of the
Appellate Authority. Section 53 deals with the power to release
property which is seized under Section 52. This provision was
substituted by MP Act 7 of 2010. Prior to the substitution, Section
53 stipulated the release of the property seized on the execution
of a bond, for the production of the property, when required, before
the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. Under
Section 60, the property which has been confiscated by an
Authorised Officer under Section 52 is to vest in the government,
subject to the result of the proceedings before the Appellate
Authority under Section 52 or upon suo motu action under Section
52-A or a revision before the Court of Sessions u/s 52-B.
[Para 10][167-D; 169-B; 171-A-B]
THE STATE OF M

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