(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest-officer or Police-officer.
(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall, as soon as may be, make a - report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account which the seizure has been made:
Provided that, when the forest-produce with respect to which such offence is belie to have been committed is the property of Government, and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior.
Case: Kailash Chand And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., 1994 - AIR 1995 MP 1
Kailash Chand And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., 1994 - AIR 1995 MP 1
Case: Divisional Forest Officer vs Sudhakar Rao and Others - 1986 AIR 328, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 680
Forest Range Officer seized teak timber from the house of G.V.Sudhakar Rao (Respondent) and produced it to DFO (Authorised Officer), along with a report stating that he had reason to believe that a forest offence had been committed. While confiscation proceedings were pending before DFO, Range Officer simultaneously filed a complaint with Metropolitan Magistrate against the respondents for commission of offence under AP Forest Act.
The respondents moved the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC, for staying the confiscation proceedings in view of pending criminal prosecution. High Court directed to stay the confiscation proceedings till the disposal of criminal case, based on the view that there could not be simultaneous proceedings for confiscation and prosecution of the respondents.
Prosecution appealed to Supreme Court on the basis that the proceedings of confiscation and prosecution of the accused for commission of forest offence are not overlapping and them for two separate proceedings before two independent forums.
Judgment:
- Section 44 sub-section (2) of AP Forest Act was amended and sub-section (2A) was inserted to provide for producing the seized property to an Authorised Officer and empower the Authorised Officer to order confiscation of such property. It was brought about with a view to prevent the menace of illicit felling of valuable forest produce, particularly from the reserved forests.
- Under the scheme of the Act, a Forest Officer seizing any property has the discretion to either produce it before the Authorised Officer or make a report to the Magistrate. Where the timber or forest produce seized and produced before the Authorised Officer, he has to proceed to order confiscation after following procedure laid down by the Act. The person aggrieved by such order of confiscation has a right of appeal within 30 days to the District Court.
- The Forest Department may also decide to prosecute the accused. In such case, the Forest Officer shall make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate. Magistrate shall, except where the offence is compounded, take such measures necessary for the trial of the accused and disposal of property according to the law.
- The Act says that the Court shall order confiscation to the property seized, except where an order of confiscation has already been passed by the Authorised Officer. This curtails the power of the Magistrate to order confiscation on conviction of an accused, when AO has already ordered confiscation.
- There is no conflict of jurisdiction between the Authorised Officer to direct confiscation of property seized and the Magistrate making an order of confiscation of the property on conviction of the accused. These powers are separate and distinct and there is no overlapping of their jurisdiction.
- The power of confiscation vested upon the Authorised Officer is not dependent upon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of a forest offence has been launched or not. Authorised Officer can direct for confiscation if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed. In that case, Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 457 of CrPC.
- Merely because there was an acquittal of the accused in the trial before the Magistrate due to paucity of evidence or otherwise, does not a necessarily entail in nullifying the order of confiscation of the seized timber or forests produce by the Authorized Officer.
This decision was upheld in Kallo Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh.
Case: State of Karnataka vs K Krishnan - 2000 (5) 611
State of Karnataka vs K Krishnan - 2000 (5) 611
Case: Section Forester and Another vs Mansur Ali Khan - [2004(2) JCR 96 (SC)]
High Court of Karnataka had released a vehicle involved in a forest offence from custody of Forest Department on condition of an indemnity bond of Rs. 50,000/-. The reason given bthe High Court that the vehicle was in the custody of Forest officers for more than a year and there was no likelihood of immediate disposal of the pending case.
Judgement:
- The reason given by High court cannot be accepted. This would be the case in almost all cases involving release of vehicle.
- The basis of a likely delay in disposal of a criminal case is insufficient for releasing the vehicle involved in the offence.
- Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs K Krishnan has held : Any vehicle that is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till culmination of all proceedings
Case: Kantilal Prekjit Patel vs Range Forest Officer - 1986 (3) BomCR 613
In a Mobile squad visit to the saw mill run by the petitioner, 16 logs of teak logs of teak wood without any department marking was found. They were also found to be recently cut. Also a truck was being unloaded inside the compound of the saw mill. The RFO seized the wood, truck and also sealed the machinery of the saw mill. The judicial Magistrate allowed removal of the seal. On appeal by FRO, Sessions Judge set aside order of unsealing.
Judgment:
- Cutting parts of various machines driven by power are included in the word tool
- Forest offences involving cutting and storing of illicit wood cannot be checked if the word �tools� does not include such machines
The word seize as given in Section 52 allows Forest officer to take possession of machines used in saw mill.
Case: State of Maharashtra vs Naim Emmamuddin Chikhalekar - 1999 (5) BomCR 109
State of Maharashtra vs Naim Emmamuddin Chikhalekar - 1999 (5) BomCR 109
Case: Kamlesh vs State of Maharashtra - (1996) 98 BOMLR 889, 1997 CriLJ 1399
- Tractor and trolley of the applicant Kamlesh was seized as it was carrying sand from forest for the offences punishable under Section 26(1)(c)(d) and (g) of the Indian Forest Act.
- The Forest Officer has reported the seizure of the tractor and trolley along with sand to the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
- The applicant has filed an application for supratnama.
- The Judicial Magistrate First Class has held that sand is a forest produce and under Section 52 of the Act, the property is liable to be confiscated and forfeited and held that the Court has no jurisdiction to release the property.
Contention by the petitioner:
- Section 61(A) to (G) are not applicable in the present case, as the sand is not notified forest produce.
Judgment:
- There is no dispute that the sand is a forest produce
- Section 52(2) second proviso lays down that whether the offence on account which the seizure has been made is in respect of timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or such other forest produce as may be notified by the State Government from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the notified forest produce) and which is the property of the State Government, such officer shall make a report of such seizure also to the concerned authorised officer under Section 61(A) of the Act.
- If a report is made under Section 61(A) of the Act to the authorised Forest Officer, then the trial Magistrate does not get jurisdiction to release the property on Supratnama.
- Otherwise the trial Magistrate has jurisdiction.
- The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The application of applicant for releasing the tractor and trolley on supratnama is granted.
(1) All timber or forest produce which is not the property of Government and in respect of which a forest-offence has been committed, and all tools, boats, carts and cattle used in committing any forest offence, shall be liable to confiscation.
(2) Such confiscation may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence.
Case: State of Maharashtra vs Arjun Tabadu Mahajan - 1988 (1) BomCR 603
The Range Forest Officer, Shahada, filed a complaint before JM (First Class), against 49 persons (Arjun Tabadu Mahajan and Ors.) under Section 26(1)(d), for trespassing and permitting 260 cattle to graze in the reserved forest. All the cattle were seized
The accused pleaded guilty in front of the Magistrate and they were convicted. Magistrate further ordered that the cattle seized in the case to be confiscated to the state.
Aggrieved by the order, the respondents appealed to the Sessions Court which held that the requirement of Section 55 is that the offence must be committed in respect of timber of forest produce and the offence under Section 26(1)(d) is not against timber or wood. The Sessions Court set aside the order passed by the Magistrate.
The petitioner contended that the interpretation of the provision of Section 55 of IFA by Additional Sessions Judge is not correct and on proper interpretation, the learned Magistrate was right.
Judgment:
- Section 55 makes it clear that all timber of forest produce which is not the property of Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed, shall be liable by order of the convicting court of forfeiture. The other part of the section states that all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle are also liable to forfeiture.
- Forest offence has been defined in Section 2(3) of IFA to mean an offence punishable under the Act. Therefore the offence under Section 26(1)(d) is also forest offence and any cattle used in committing forest offence is liable for forfeiture.
- The words used in Section 55 are not �any such offence but any forest offence and, there fore the cattle that is liable for forfeiture cannot be restricted only to such of them which is concerned with forest offence committed in respect of only timber.
- The Act says that the Court shall order confiscation to the property seized, except where an order of confiscation has already been passed by the Authorised Officer. This curtails the power of the Magistrate to order confiscation on conviction of an accused, when AO has already ordered confiscation.
- For offences under IFA, the complainant should always give evidence of the actual damage caused to the forest with a view to enabling the Court to award proper compensation. That would facilitate the court to decide whether order of forfeiture under Section 55 should be passed or not.
- The words used in Section 55 to the effect �shall be liable by order of convicting Court to forfeiture�, vest the discretion with the trial Court.
Case: Divisional Forest Officer vs Sudhakar Rao and Others - 1986 AIR 328, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 680
Forest Range Officer seized teak timber from the house of G.V.Sudhakar Rao (Respondent) and produced it to DFO (Authorised Officer), along with a report stating that he had reason to believe that a forest offence had been committed. While confiscation proceedings were pending before DFO, Range Officer simultaneously filed a complaint with Metropolitan Magistrate against the respondents for commission of offence under AP Forest Act.
The respondents moved the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC, for staying the confiscation proceedings in view of pending criminal prosecution. High Court directed to stay the confiscation proceedings till the disposal of criminal case, based on the view that there could not be simultaneous proceedings for confiscation and prosecution of the respondents.
Prosecution appealed to Supreme Court on the basis that the proceedings of confiscation and prosecution of the accused for commission of forest offence are not overlapping and them for two separate proceedings before two independent forums.
Judgement:
- Section 44 sub-section (2) of AP Forest Act was amended and sub-section (2A) was inserted to provide for producing the seized property to an Authorised Officer and empower the Authorised Officer to order confiscation of such property. It was brought about with a view to prevent the menace of illicit felling of valuable forest produce, particularly from the reserved forests.
- Under the scheme of the Act, a Forest Officer seizing any property has the discretion to either produce it before the Authorised Officer or make a report to the Magistrate. Where the timber or forest produce seized and produced before the Authorised Officer, he has to proceed to order confiscation after following procedure laid down by the Act. The person aggrieved by such order of confiscation has a right of appeal within 30 days to the District Court.
- The Forest Department may also decide to prosecute the accused. In such case, the Forest Officer shall make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate. Magistrate shall, except where the offence is compounded, take such measures necessary for the trial of the accused and disposal of property according to the law.
- The Act says that the Court shall order confiscation to the property seized, except where an order of confiscation has already been passed by the Authorised Officer. This curtails the power of the Magistrate to order confiscation on conviction of an accused, when AO has already ordered confiscation.
- There is no conflict of jurisdiction between the Authorised Officer to direct confiscation of property seized and the Magistrate making an order of confiscation of the property on conviction of the accused. These powers are separate and distinct and there is no overlapping of their jurisdiction.
- The power of confiscation vested upon the Authorised Officer is not dependent upon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of a forest offence has been launched or not. Authorised Officer can direct for confiscation if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed. In that case, Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 457 of CrPC.
- Merely because there was an acquittal of the accused in the trial before the Magistrate due to paucity of evidence or otherwise, does not a necessarily entail in nullifying the order of confiscation of the seized timber or forests produce by the Authorized Officer.
This decision was upheld in Kallo Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh.
Case: Ahmadji vs State of Madhya Pradesh - AIR 1986 MP 1
A truck loaded with Mango tree logs, owned by Ahmadji, was seized from a saw mill at night. One Idu Khan was in the truck. Since no transit pass was produced, the truck along with logs of wood was seized under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act.
Idu Khan expressed a desire to compound the offence, and the Divisional Forest Officer compounded the offence and confiscated the truck under the Section 68 read with Section 55 of IFA. Ahmadji filed an application before CJM for the release of truck. The CJM held that the court has no jusidiction as the matter was compounded by the DFO.
Upon filing of Misc. Criminal case, the court held that a fresh application can be made by the petitioner and magistrate can pass necessary order for the release of truck as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner earlier. Accordingly the CJM passed an order for the release of truck. Three days later, the DFO again confiscated the truck after issuing show cause notice. Later the court held that the remedy for the fresh confiscation was to appeal against the order of DFO under Section 52A of amended IFA. Petitioner instead filed petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Judgment:
- The logs of mango trees come within the definition of the forest produce.
- Under Section 55 of original IFA, the order for confiscation can be passed only by the Magistrate, and not by the DFO.
- Under the amended Indian Forest (M.P. Amendment) Act 1983, the Authorised officer can co0nfiscate the forest produce and the vehicle used for committing the offence.
Provision for appeal and revision are provided in Section 52A and 52B respectively. Section 52C of amended IFA bars the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with disposal of forest produce and vehicle, after a due intimation received from DFO about initiation of confiscation proceedings.
- Amendment to the Indian Forest Act cannot be applied retrospectively.
- The court held that the vehicle should be released as per the order of CJM after executing a Supradnama, and the order of confiscation by DFO had been quashed.
Case: Mehta Brothers vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 1980 CriLJ 289
In two different incidents, two different trucks were intercepted by the Police and it was found in both instances that the truck was carrying 46 Deodar wood logs in excess of the challan produced by the drivers. In both the cases, the drivers admitted their guilt and convicted under Section 42 of IFA. In both cases the CJM ordered the forfeiture of the 46 logs of Deodar wood in favor of the State.
The petitioner (Mehta Brothers) filed appeals against the order of confiscation in the Sessions Court, where the orders of forfeiture were upheld. The petitioner filed petitions challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Judge in appeals.
In both the petitions, the petitioner claimed that no opportunity was given to substantiate its cause before the orders of forfeiture were passed.
The respondent (State), contends that the petitioner should have approached the CJM to substantiate its claim before the order was passed. It further contended that an appeal under Section 59 of IFA is not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party before the CJM.
The petitioner claimed that the scope of Section 59 of IFA is wide enough for it to make an appeal even if it had failed to approach the trial court. It also contended that the stance of Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that timber is liable for confiscation irrespective of the fact whether the timber belongs to the accused or not.
Judgment:
- There is no dispute between the parties that the forfeited logs are owned by the petitioner, and the petitioner did not extend its claim before the CJM. It is also not disputed that the drivers did not claim the property as their own, and they were convicted only for transporting excess logs without valid permit.
- The principle of natural justice requires that a person cannot be adversely affected without affording him a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his cause.
- Under Section 59 of IFA, any interested party is given a substantive right to prefer an appeal against the order of forfeiture. There is no bar in the section that no person would be entitled to prefer an appeal who has not extended his claim before a Magistrate. Thus the petitioner was competent to seek redress in the court of Sessions Judge.
- The phrase shall be liable for confiscation in Section 55 of IFA does not mean that the property stands automatically confiscated. It is presupposed that an opportunity is to be given to the person affected before the property is actually ordered to be confiscated.
The officer made the seizure under section 52, or any of his official superiors, or any person claim to be interested in the property so seized, may, within one month from the date of any order passed under section 55, section 56 or section 57, appeal therefrom to the Court to will orders made by such Magistrate are ordinarily appealable, and the order passed on A appeal shall be final.
Case: Mehta Brothers vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 1980 CriLJ 289
In two different incidents, two different trucks were intercepted by the Police and it was found in both instances that the truck was carrying 46 Deodar wood logs in excess of the challan produced by the drivers. In both the cases, the drivers admitted their guilt and convicted under Section 42 of IFA. In both cases the CJM ordered the forfeiture of the 46 logs of Deodar wood in favor of the State.
The petitioner (Mehta Brothers) filed appeals against the order of confiscation in the Sessions Court, where the orders of forfeiture were upheld. The petitioner filed petitions challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Judge in appeals.
In both the petitions, the petitioner claimed that no opportunity was given to substantiate its cause before the orders of forfeiture were passed.The respondent (State), contends that the petitioner should have approached the CJM to substantiate its claim before the order was passed. It further contended that an appeal under Section 59 of IFA is not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party before the CJM.
The petitioner claimed that the scope of Section 59 of IFA is wide enough for it to make an appeal even if it had failed to approach the trial court. It also contended that the stance of Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that timber is liable for confiscation irrespective of the fact whether the timber belongs to the accused or not.
Judgment:
- There is no dispute between the parties that the forfeited logs are owned by the petitioner, and the petitioner did not extend its claim before the CJM. It is also not disputed that the drivers did not claim the property as their own, and they were convicted only for transporting excess logs without valid permit.
- The principle of natural justice requires that a person cannot be adversely affected without affording him a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his cause.
- Under Section 59 of IFA, any interested party is given a substantive right to prefer an appeal against the order of forfeiture. There is no bar in the section that no person would be entitled to prefer an appeal who has not extended his claim before a Magistrate. Thus the petitioner was competent to seek redress in the court of Sessions Judge.
- Under the amended Indian Forest (M.P. Amendment) Act 1983, the Authorised officer can co0nfiscate the forest produce and the vehicle used for committing the offence.
Provision for appeal and revision are provided in Section 52A and 52B respectively. Section 52C of amended IFA bars the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with disposal of forest produce and vehicle, after a due intimation received from DFO about initiation of confiscation proceedings.
- The phrase shall be liable for confiscation in Section 55 of IFA does not mean that the property stands automatically confiscated. It is presupposed that an opportunity is to be given to the person affected before the property is actually ordered to be confiscated.
Nothing hereinbefore contained shall be deemed to prevent any officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government, from directing at any time the immediate release of any property seized under section 52.
Case: Kamlesh vs State of Maharashtra - (1996) 98 BOMLR 889, 1997 CriLJ 1399
- Tractor and trolley of the applicant Kamlesh was seized as it was carrying sand from forest for the offences punishable under Section 26(1)(c)(d) and (g) of the Indian Forest Act.
- The Forest Officer has reported the seizure of the tractor and trolley along with sand to the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
- The applicant has filed an application for supratnama.
- The Judicial Magistrate First Class has held that sand is a forest produce and under Section 52 of the Act, the property is liable to be confiscated and forfeited and held that the Court has no jurisdiction to release the property.
Contention by the petitioner:
- Section 61(A) to (G) are not applicable in the present case, as the sand is not notified forest produce.
Judgment:
- There is no dispute that the sand is a forest produce.
- Section 52(2) second proviso lays down that whether the offence on account which the seizure has been made is in respect of timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal or such other forest produce as may be notified by the State Government from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the notified forest produce) and which is the property of the State Government, such officer shall make a report of such seizure also to the concerned authorised officer under Section 61(A) of the Act.
- If a report is made under Section 61(A) of the Act to the authorised Forest Officer, then the trial Magistrate does not get jurisdiction to release the property on Supratnama.
- Otherwise the trial Magistrate has jurisdiction.
- The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The application of applicant for releasing the tractor and trolley on supratnama is granted.
(1) Any Forest-officer or Police-officer without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been concerned in any forest-offence punishable with imprisonment for one month or upwards.
(2) Every officer making an arrest under this section shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions of this Act as to release on bond, take or send the person arrested before the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or to the officer in charge of the nearest police station.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise such arrest for any act which is an offence under Chapter IV unless such act has been prohibited under clause (c) of section 30.
Case: Abdul Aziz vs Union Territory of Tripura - 1963 CriLJ 558
- The petitioner , Abdul Aziz was detected by the Plantation Watcher peeling off the bark of a Sal tree within a Protected Forest after he had cut down the tree.
- When plantation watcher tried to arrest him for the forest offence, the petitioner gave a blow with a dao causing injury and then ran away from the place.
- The petitioner was convicted by the lower court for Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension(sec 224 IPC) and Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means(sec 324 IPC).
Contention by the petitioner:
- Plantation Watcher is a private person and was not empowered to arrest the petitioner under the Indian Forest Act.
- So the petitioner was entitled for his right of private defence to free himself from the clutches of plantation watcher.
- So hurting the plantation watcher was no offence either under Section 224 or 324 I.P.C.
Judgment:
- Power to arrest without warrant under section 64 of IFA makes the offences under section 33(1)(a) cognisable.
- But Section 65 shows that any person arrested could be released on his executing a bond to appear before a magistrate. Hence, it is clear that the offence is not a non-bailable offence.
- It follows that a private person cannot arrest under Section 59 Cr.P.C. for a forest offence.
- Plantation watcher is appointed by the Divisional Forest Officer who has been empowered to appoint Forest Officers.
- If a plantation Watcher sees a person cutting down a protected tree from a plantation, he has to protect such trees. He is carrying out the purpose of the Indian Forest Act.
- So a Plantation Watcher is a Forest officer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.