# THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH

- **Citation:** [2019] 6 S.C.R. 154
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-03-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2019
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-v-uday-singh-33846
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

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 subsection (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
A

## Text

_Characters 0–39,931 of 77,281. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39931 for what follows._

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 subsection (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 MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
1.3 Distinct from the proceedings for confiscation envisaged
under the Forest Act are those relating to criminal prosecution,
as amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 52(2)
stipulates that where it is intended to launch a criminal proceeding
against an offender immediately, a report of the seizure has to be
made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence.
Where the property which has been seized under Section 52 is
released by an Authorised Officer under Section 53, it must be
upon execution of security in such form as may be prescribed,
equal to the value of the property, so as to ensure the production
of the property when required before the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to try the offence. On receipt of a report under Section
52(2), Section 54 stipulates that the Magistrate must take all
measures necessary for the arrest and trial of the offender and
the disposal of the property according to law. This proviso is
significant, because before passing any order for disposal of the
property, the Magistrate must be satisfied that no intimation has
been received under Section 52(4). Section 55 provides that upon
the conviction of the offender for a forest offence, the forest
produce together with tools, boats, vehicles and other
articles used for its commission shall be liable to confiscation,
subject to the provisions of Sections 52, 52-A, 52-B and 52-C.
[Para 12, 13][173-D-G; 174-B-D]
1.4 The intent of the State Legislature is emphasised by
the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 54 as well as
in sub-section (1) of Section 55. Under Section 52(2) where it is
intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender
immediately, the officer seizing any property under the Section
has to make a report of the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has
been made. Upon the conviction of the offender for a forest
offence, Section 55 clearly indicates that the forest produce and
all tools, boats, vehicles, articles etc. used in the commission of
the forest offence would be liable to confiscation subject
to the provisions of Sections 52, 52-A, 52-B and 52-C.
[Para 14][174-F-G]
1.5 Specific provisions have been made for the seizure and
confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and
articles used in the commission of offences. Upon a seizure under
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
157
Section 52(1), the officer effecting the seizure has to either
produce the property before the Authorised Officer or to make a
report of the seizure under sub-section (2) of Section 52. Upon
being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, the
Authorised Officer is empowered, for reasons to be recorded, to
confiscate the forest produce together with the tools, vehicles,
boats and articles used in its commission. Before confiscating
any property under sub-section (3), the Authorised Officer is
required to send an intimation of the initiation of the proceedings
for the confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to try the offence. Where it is intended to immediately
launch a criminal proceeding, a report of the seizure is made to
the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. The order
of confiscation under Section 52(3) is subject to an appeal under
Section 52-A and a revision under Section 52-B. Sub-section (5)
of Section 52-B imparts finality to the order of the Court of
Sessions in revision notwithstanding anything contained to the
contrary in the CrPC and provides that it shall not be called into
question before any court. Section 52-C stipulates that on the
receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate under sub-section (4)
of Section 52, no court, tribunal or authority, other than an
Authorised Officer, an Appellate Authority or Court of Sessions
(under Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass
orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution
of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have
been initiated. Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C has a non-obstante
provision which operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in the Forest Act 1927 or in any other law for the time
being in force. The only saving is in respect of an officer duly
empowered by the State government for directing the immediate
release of a property seized under Section 52, as provided in
Section 61. Hence, upon the receipt of an intimation by the
Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings under subsection (4)(a) of Section 52, the bar of jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted. The scheme
contained in the amendments enacted to the Forest Act 1927 in
relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, makes it abundantly
clear that the direction which was issued by the High Court in
the instant case, in a petition under Section 482 CrPC, to the
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which
had been seized, was contrary to law. The jurisdiction under
Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the
Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings.
[Para 26][185-A-H; 186-A-B]
1.6 The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Forest Act
1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose. Protection of
forests against depredation is a constitutionally mandated goal
exemplified by Article 48A of the Directive Principles and the
Fundamental Duty of every citizen incorporated in Article 51A(g).
By isolating the confiscation of forest produce and the
instruments utilised for the commission of an offence from criminal
trials, the legislature intended to ensure that confiscation is an
effective deterrent. The absence of effective deterrence was
considered by the Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal
regime. The state amendment has sought to overcome that
deficiency by imposing stringent deterrents against activities
which threaten the pristine existence of forests in Madhya
Pradesh. As an effective tool for protecting and preserving
environment, these provisions must receive a purposive
interpretation. For, it is only when the interpretation of law keeps
pace with the object of the Legislature that the grave evils which
pose a danger to natural environment can be suppressed. The
avarice of humankind through the ages has resulted in an alarming
depletion of the natural environment. The consequences of
climate change are bearing down on every day of our existence.
Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to the daily
assaults on the environment. The impugned judgment and order
of the High Court is set aside. [Para 27, 28][186-B-F]
State of Madhya Pradesh v Madhukar Rao (2008) 14
SCC 624 : [2008] 1 SCR 413 ; Divisional Forest Officer
v GV Sudhakar Rao (1985) 4 SCC 573 : [1985] 3 Suppl.
SCR 680 ; State of Karnataka v KA Kunchindammed
(2002) 9 SCC 90 : [2002] 3 SCR 162 ; State of West
Bengal v Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129 : [2004]
1 SCR 870 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v Kallo Bai
(2017) 14 SCC 502 ; State of AP v PK Mohammad
(1978) 1 APLJ 391 ; Mohd Yaseen v Forest Range
Officer, Flying Squad, Rayachoti (1980) 1 ALT 8 ;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
159
Kailash Chand v State of MP (1995) AIR (MP) 1 ;
Ramkumar Sahoo v State of Madhya Pradesh WP No
18818 of 2017 decided on 15.02.2018 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 1 SCR 413
referred to
Para 4
[1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 680
referred to
Para 4
[2002] 3 SCR 162
referred to
Para 4
[2004] 1 SCR 870
referred to
Para 4
(2017) 14 SCC 502
referred to
Para 4
(1978) 1 APLJ 391
referred to
Para 19
(1980) 1 ALT 8
referred to
Para 19
(1995) AIR (MP) 1
referred to
Para 24
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 524 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2011 by the High Court
of M.P., Bench at Gwalior in Misc. Crl. Case No. 5171/2011.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2019
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1362-1363 and 1364 of 2012
Varun K. Chopra, Dy. Adv. Gen., Gurtej Pal Singh,
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Jitesh P. Gupta, Ms. Praveena Gautam, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
Criminal Appeal No.524 of 2019 @ SLP (Crl.) No.2001 of
2002:
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench dated 29
July 2011. Allowing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Procedure 19731, the High Court set aside a revisional order dated 16
June 2011 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. The Additional
Sessions Judge had confirmed an order of the Judicial Magistrate First
Class2, Ambah dismissing an application under Section 451 of the CrPC
seeking the release of a tractor and trolley which had been seized for
being involved in the illegal excavation of sand from the Chambal river.
3. On 26 March 2011, the Forest Officer apprehended a tractor
and trolley belonging to the respondent alleged to have been carrying
sand illegally excavated from a restricted area of Dalijeet Pura Ghat at
the National Sanctuary, Chambal without permission and in the absence
of a transit pass. The tractor and trolley was seized together with the
sand by the officers of the Forest Department under Sections 41, 52 and
52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 19273 and Sections 27, 29, 39(1)(d), 51
and 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Intimation of the seizure
was given to the Magistrate under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 on 27 March 2011. The respondent moved an application4 under
Section 451 of the CrPC5 before the JMFC, Ambah for interim release
of the seized vehicle. The Magistrate dismissed the application by an
order dated 21 April 2011. A Criminal Revision6 met with the same fate
before the District and Sessions Judge, Morena on 16 June 2011. The
respondent then instituted proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC7
before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench. By a
judgment dated 29 July 2011, the High Court directed the Magistrate to
1 "CrPC"
2 "JMFC"
3 "Indian Forest Act"
4 Application No 9661 of 2009
5 "Section 451 - Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in
certain cases. - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an
inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody
of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is
subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court
may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise
disposed of.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "property" includes-
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is
in its custody.
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or
which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence"
6 68 of 2011
7 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 5171 of 2011
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
161
pass orders for the interim release of the vehicle. The State of Madhya
Pradesh has instituted these proceedings under Article 136 of the
Constitution to assail the judgment of the High Court.
4 The grievance of the State of Madhya Pradesh is that similar
orders have been passed by the High Court directing the Magistrate to
release seized vehicles, relying on a decision of this Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh v Madhukar Rao8. According to the State, in
Madhukar Rao, this Court interpreted the provisions of the Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972 and came to the conclusion that the Magistrate has
the power and jurisdiction under Section 451 of the CrPC to order interim
release of a seized vehicle. On the other hand, it has been submitted that
the present case and other cases of its genre are governed by the
provisions of the Indian Forest Act 1927 as amended in relation to the
State of Madhya Pradesh by MP Act 25 of 1983. The submission is that
the confiscation proceedings have been initiated in terms of Section 52(3)
and hence the procedure is governed by Sections 52 and 52-A.
Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 451 of the
CrPC would (it has been urged) stand excluded. Elaborating on the above
submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
relied on the decisions of this Court in: (i) Divisional Forest Officer v
GV Sudhakar Rao9, (ii) State of Karnataka v KA Kunchindammed10,
(iii) State of West Bengal v Sujit Kumar Rana11; and (iv) State of
Madhya Pradesh v Kallo Bai12.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that:
(i)
Section 52 of the Forest Act provides that when a forest
offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce,
the produce together with all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes,
chains or any other article used in committing the offence
may be seized by any Forest Officer. Section 52(3) provides
that subject to sub-section (5), where the Authorised Officer,
upon production before him of property seized or upon receipt
of a report about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied
8 (2008) 14 SCC 624
9 (1985) 4 SCC 573
10 (2002) 4 SCC 90
11 (2004) 4 SCC 129
12 (2017) 14 SCC 502
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof,
he may order in writing, for reasons to be recorded, the
confiscation of the forest produce so seized together with all
tools, vehicles, boats, chains or any other article used in
committing the offence;
(ii)
For the State of Madhya Pradesh, MP Act 25 of 1983
substituted the original provisions of Section 52 of the Forest
Act, with certain conditions. Sub- section (3) of Section 52
as enacted by MP Act 25 of 1983, empowers the Authorised
Officer to make an order in writing with reasons confiscating
the forest produce so seized along with the tools, vehicles or
any other article used in committing the offence. Similarly,
for the State of Madhya Pradesh, MP Act 25 of 1983 inserted
Section 52-A which provides for an appeal against the
order of confiscation to the Appellate Authority within thirty
days of the order of confiscation being passed by the
Authorised Officer;
(iii)
The High Court has erred in directing the release of the
seized vehicle in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court failed to appreciate
that in the present case confiscation proceedings have been
initiated in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the Forest
Act, and the procedure thereafter would be governed by
Sections 52 and 52-A. Since the confiscation proceedings
have been initiated by the forest department, in terms of
Section 52(3), the Magistrate in pursuance of the power
conferred under Section 451 of the CrPC cannot direct
release of the seized vehicle, as the jurisdiction of the criminal
court stands excluded;
(iv) This Court in Sujit Kumar Rana (supra) has held that once
confiscation proceedings are initiated, the jurisdiction of the
criminal court stands excluded. Since confiscation
proceedings have been initiated by the forest authorities in
terms of Section 52(3), the Magistrate cannot order release
of the vehicle under Section 451 of the CrPC. Similarly, the
High Court cannot under Section 482 of the CrPC direct
release of the seized vehicle as the jurisdiction of the criminal
court stands excluded; and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
(v)
The legislative intent while inserting the abovementioned
provisions must be kept in mind. Forests are a national wealth
which are required to be preserved. In most cases, the State
is the owner of the forest and forest produce and is enjoined
with a duty to preserve forests to maintain an ecological
balance. Therefore, statutory interpretation of such provisions
should have regard to the principle of purposive construction
so as to give effect to the aim and object of the legislature,
and keeping the principles contained in Articles 48-A and
51-A(g) of the Constitution in mind.
6. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the
respondent13 that Chapter IX of the Forest Act, as amended in its
application to the State of Madhya Pradesh, does not oust the jurisdiction
of the Magistrate to deal with seized property, once it becomes a part of
evidence at a criminal trial under the CrPC. In this context, it was urged
that:
(i)
Under Section 52(2), where the intention is to launch criminal
proceeding, the report is to be sent only to the Magistrate
having jurisdiction to try the offence and not the Authorised
Officer. The expression "officer seizing the property" needs
to be distinguished from the expression "authorised officer
under the Act";
(ii)
The said Authorised Officer can proceed to satisfy herself
whether a forest offence has been committed or not under
Section 52(3), only if the seized property is produced before
the Authorised Officer. If under Section 52(2), the report of
the seizure has been sent to the Magistrate, the Authorised
Officer cannot decide upon the commission of a forest
offence, as the report of seizure is not before the Authorised
Officer;
(iii)
Since Authorised Officers cannot apply themselves to
whether the seizure was valid, the circumstance of the
Authorised Officer passing an order of confiscation does
not arise at all. It follows that the intimation under Section
52(4) cannot be given when there is no confiscation;
13 In SLP (Crl.) No. 5413 of 2013
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
(iv) The bar on jurisdiction under Section 52-C only applies after
intimation under Section 52(4) is given. Since the Authorised
Officer cannot pass an order of confiscation, the jurisdiction
for trial of a criminal offence and the power to deal with the
property involved rests with the Magistrate; and
(v)
Therefore, there is no scope for parallel proceedings before
both the Authorised Officer and the Magistrate, if the officer
seizing the property believes that the gravity of the offence
calls for a criminal trial and sends the report of seizure directly
to the Magistrate.
7. The rival submissions fall for consideration.
8. Section 52 of the Forest Act forms a part of Chapter IX which
deals with penalties and procedure. In relation to Madhya Pradesh,
Section 52 was substituted by MP Act 25 of 1983 and is in the following
terms:
"52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure
therefor.-
(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been
committed in respect of any reserved forest and protected forest
or forest produce, the produce, and all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes,
chains or any other article used in committing 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, either produce the property
seized before an officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant
Conservative of Forests by the State Government in this behalf
by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer)
or where it is, having regard to the quantity of bulk or other genuine
difficulty, not practicable to produce property seized before the
authorized officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorized
officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings
against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure
to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account
of which the seizure has been made:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
165
Provided that, when the forest produce with respect to which
offence is believed to have been committed is the property of the
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.
(3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorized officer upon
production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report
about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence
has been committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing
and for reasons to be recorded confiscate forest-produce so seized
together with all tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other
article used in committing such offence. A copy of order of
confiscation shall be forwarded without any undue delay to the
Conservators of Forests of the forest circle in which the timber or
the forest- produce, as the case may be, has been seized.
(4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under subsection (3) unless the authorized officer-
(a) sends an intimation in form prescribed about initiation of
proceedings for confiscation of property to the magistrate having
jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has
been made;
(b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property
is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the
authorized officer to have some interest in such property;
(c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause
(b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as
may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation;
and
(d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or
persons to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing
on date to be fixed for such purpose.
(5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools,
vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article (other than timber
or forest-produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to
in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
authorized officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains
or other articles were used without his knowledge or convenience
or, as the case may be, without the knowledge or convenience of
his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary
precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid
for commission of forest-offence.
(6) The seized property shall continue to be under custody until
confirmation of the order of the authorized officer by the Appellate
Authority or until the expiry of the period for initiating 'suo motu'
action by him whichever is earlier, as prescribed under Section
52-A.
(7) Where the authorized officer having jurisdiction over the case
is himself involved in the seizure or investigation, the next higher
authority may transfer the case to any other officer of the same
rank for conducting proceedings under this section."
9. Under sub-section (1) of Section 52, 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 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:
(i)
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;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
167
(ii)
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;
(iii)
Affording a reasonable opportunity of making a
representation against the proposed confiscation; and
(iv) 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.
10. Section 52-A provides an appellate remedy to a person
aggrieved to the Conservator of Forests, against an order of confiscation.
Section 52-A provides as follows:
"52-A. Appeal against the order of confiscation.-
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may, within
thirty days of the order, or if fact of such order has not been
communicated to him within thirty days of date of knowledge of
such order, prefer an appeal in writing, accompanied by such fee
and payable in such form as may be prescribed and by certified
copy of order of confiscation to the Conservator of Forests
(hereinafter referred to as Appellate Authority) of the forest circle
in which the forest produce, has been seized.
Explanation. - (1) The time requisite for obtaining certified copy
of order of confiscation shall be excluded while computing period
of thirty days referred to in this sub- section.
(2) The Appellate Authority referred to in sub-section (1), may,
where no appeal has been preferred before him, "suo motu" within
thirty days of date of receipt of copy of order of confiscation by
him, and shall on presentation of memorandum of appeal issue a
notice for hearing of appeal or, as the case may be, of "suo motu"
action to the officer effecting seizure and to any other person
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
(including appellant, if any) who in the opinion of the Appellate
Authority, is likely to be adversely affected by the order of the
authorised officer, and may send for the record of the case:
Provided that no formal notice of appeal need be issued to such
amongst the appellant, officer effecting seizure and any other
person likely to be adversely affected as aforesaid, as may waive
the notice or as may be informed in any other manner of date of
hearing of appeal by the Appellate Authority.
(3) The Appellate Authority shall send intimation in writing of
lodging of appeal or about "suo motu" action, to the Authorised
Officer.
(4) The Appellate Authority may pass such order of "Interim"
nature for custody, preservation or disposal (if necessary) of the
subject matter of confiscation, as may appear to be just or proper
in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The Appellate Authority, having regard to the nature of the
case or the complexities involved, may permit parties to the appeal
to be represented by their respective legal practitioners.
(6) On the date fixed for hearing of the appeal or "suo motu"
action, or on such date to which the hearing may be adjourned,
the Appellate Authority shall peruse the record and hear the parties
to the appeal if present in person, or through any agent duly
authorised in writing or through a legal practitioner, and shall
thereafter proceed to pass an order of confirmation, reversal or
modification order of the authorised officer:
Provided that before passing any final order the Appellate Authority
may if, it is considered necessary for proper decision of appeal or
for proper disposal of "suo motu" action, make further inquiry
itself or cause it to be made by the Authorised Officer, and may
also allow parties to file affidavits for asserting or refuting any
fact that may arise for consideration and may allow proof of facts
by affidavits.
(7) The Appellate Authority may also pass such orders of
consequential nature, as it may deem necessary.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
(8) Copy of final order or of order of consequential nature, shall
be sent to the Authorised Officer for compliance or for passing
any order appropriate order in conformity with the order of the
Appellate Authority."
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 52-B is in
the following terms:
"52-B. Revision before Court of Sessions against order of
Appellate Authority.-
(1) Any party to the appeal, aggrieved by final order or by order
of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority, may
within thirty days of the order sought to be impugned, submit a
petition for revision to the Court of Sessions within the Sessions
division whereof the headquarters of the Appellate Authority are
situate. Explanation.-In computing the period of thirty days under
this sub-section, the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of
Appellate Authority shall be excluded.
(2) The Court of Sessions, may confirm, reverse or modify any
final order or an order of consequential nature passed by the
Appellate Authority.
(3) Copies of the order passed in revision shall be sent to the
Appellate Authority and to the Authorised officer for compliance
or for passing such further orders or for taking such further action
as may be directed by such Court.
(4) For entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under this
section, the Court of Sessions shall, as far as may be, exercise the
same powers and follow the same procedure as it exercises and
follows while entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974).
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974), the order of the
Court of Sessions passed under this section shall be final and shall
not be called in question before any Court."
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Section 52-C contains a bar to the jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and
authorities:
"52-C. Bar of Jurisdiction of court, etc., under certain
circumstances.-
(1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52
about initiation of proceedings for confiscation or property by the
magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of
which the seizure of property which is subject matter of
confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other
than the authorised officer, Appellate Authority and Court of
Sessions referred to in sections 52, 52- A and 52-B) shall have
jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery,
disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which
proceedings for confiscation are initiated under section 52,
notwithstanding anything contrary in this Act, or any other law for
the time being in force.
Explanation.-Where under any law for the time being in force,
two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try forest- offence, then
receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 by one of
the Courts of Magistrate having such jurisdiction shall be construed
to be receipt of intimation under that provision by all the Courts
and the bar to exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power saved under
section 61."
Section 53 deals with the power to release property which is seized
under Section 52:
"53. Power to release property seized under Section 52.-
Any Forest-officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger, who,
or whose sub-ordinate, has seized any tools, boats, vehicles or
any other article Section 52, may release the same on the execution
by the owner thereof, of a security in a form as may be prescribed
of an amount equal to the value of such property, as estimated by
such officer, for the production of the property so released, when
so required, before the authorised officer under Section 52 or the
Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of
which the seizure has been made."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
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 under Section 52-B.
11. The provisions for seizure and confiscation are depicted in
Flow chart I below:
Flow Chart I: Seizure and Confiscation
Sub-section (2)
Section 52
Sub-section (1) - Where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has
been committed in respect of forest produce, the produce and all tools,
ropes, vehicles etc. used in commission of such offence may be seized by
the Forest Officer.
Mark the property and produce it
before Authorised Officer.
Or if the seized property is in bulk,
make a report to the Authorised
Officer.
Where it is intended to launch a
criminal proceeding against the
offender, immediately make a report
to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction.
Subject to sub-section (5), the Authorised Officer upon the production of
the property seized or report of seizure, on being satisfied that a forest
offence has bee committed, for reasons to be recorded, can confiscate the
forest produce so seize together with the vehicle.
Sub-section (3)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UDAY SINGH
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Sub-section (4)
No order of confiscation may be made unless the Authorised Officer
sends an intimation to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and issues
notice, and grants an opportunity of making representation and hearing
to a person from whom property had been seized or who has an interest
in such property.
Sub-section (5)
No order under sub-section (3), shall be made if the person under clause
(b) of sub- section (4) proves that such tools, vehicles, etc.