DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFLCER. & ANRversusG.V. SUDHAKAR RAO & ORS.,

        680

A
                          DIVISIONAL FOlll!ST OFFlCE8. & Alill..
                                           Vo
                             G.V. SUOOAIAR HAO & OBS,
                                   OCTOBER 31, 1985
B
                           (A,P, SEN AND D,P, MADON, JJ,]

             Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, ss. 44, 45 &58A read with
        ss. 20 and 29 - Power vested in the Authorised Officer to direct
        confiscation of seized timber or forest produce u/s,44 (2A) and
        the power of Magistrate to direct confiscation of such property
c       on conviction of the accused - Whether separate and distinct
        powers - Stay of proceedings for confiscation of seized forest
        produce before the Authorised Officer - Whether permissible when
        criminal case is pending against the accused in respect of the
        same forest offence or when accused is acquitted of the offence.

             Code of Criminal Procedure, ss. 451, 452 and 457 - Power of
D       _Criminal Court to dispose of property - Scope of.

             The Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad, Nirmal seized teak
        timber valued at Ra. 1,71,000 from the residential house of
        respondent no. l and produced the same before the Divisional
        Forest Officer, Hyderabad who is the Authorised Officer under
E       s.44 (2A) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 along with a report under
        sulMl.(2) thereof that he had reason to believe that a forest
        offence had been colllllitted, for purpoaes of confiscation of the
        seized timber under sulMI. (2A) of s. 44 of the Act. While the
        confiscation proceedings were pending before the Authorised
        Officer UDder s. 44(2A) in relation to the seized timber, the
F       Forest Range Officer si1111ltaneously lodged a complaint with the
        Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for trial of
        the respondents for collllllission of offences punishable under s.
        20(l)(c)(iv) and (x) and s. 20(l)(d) read withs. 29(4)(a)(ii) of
        the Act, The respondents moved the High Court under s, 482 of
        the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963 for stay of the confiscation
    G   proceedings before the Authorised Officer under s. 44(2A) of the
        Act in view of the pending criminal prosecution. Upon the view
        that the power of the Authorised Officer to direct confiscation
        under sub-a. (2A) of s. 44 of the Act and that of the Metropoli-
        tan Magistrate under s. 45 of the Act were mtually exclusive and
        therefore there cc.>l!ld not be sillllltaneous proceedings for conf is-
    H   cation before the Authorised Officer under s. 44(2A) as slao
          DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER v. G. V. SUDllAKAR RAC'      681


prosecution of the respondents for comida•ion of a foreat offence       A
under s. 20 or 29 of the Act, a learned Single Judge by tile
impugned order directed stay of the proceeding• .before the
Authoriaed Officer under B• 44(2A) till the diapoaal of tba
criminal case by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

     Allowing the appeal,                                               B

     llELD:l, The power of the Authorised Officer to direct
confiscation of the seized timber or forest produce and the
implements etc. under sub-s.(2A} of s.44 of tba Act prodaad
before him by the Forest Range Officer along with a report UDder
sub-9.(2) thereof, if the Authorised Officer ia satisfied that a        C
forest offence bas been commi~ted in respect thereof, and tba
power of the Magistrate to direct confiscation of such pzoperty
under s, 45 upon conviction of the accused for comiaaion of a
forest offence under s. 20 or 29 of the Act, are separate and
distinct and there is no overlapping of the aame. The change&
brought about by Act No.17 of 1976 clearly contemplate for two          D
separate proceedings before two independent forwas. l'bere is no
conflict of jurisdiction as s.45, as amended by the AgendM!J~
Act, in terms curtails the power of the Magiatrate to direct
confiscation of the seized tilllber or forest produce on conviction·
of the accused, by the use of the words 'except where an order
for confiscation has already been passed in respect thereof under       E
s. 44' inserted in s.45 of the Act.

     2, The High Court was in error in holding that there could
aot be silllll.taneous proceedings for confiscation before the
Authorised Officer under sub-s.(2A) of s.44 of the Act and prose-
cution of the accused for comission of forest offences under
s.20 or 29 of .the Act.                                                 F

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION       Criminal Appeal No. 752
of 1985.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.83 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Crl. Misc. Petn. No. 1810 of 1983,                G

     K. Parasaran, Attorney General and G. Narashimulu        for the
Appellants.

      P. Ram Reddy ..nd A.v.v. Nair for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            H
    682             SUPREME COURT REPCRTS       [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
A
          SEN, J. This appeal by special leave raises a question
    whether the High Court could have stayed under s. 482 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the proceedings for confiscation of
    illicitly felled teak timber trees by the respondents from the
    reserved forests in Adilabad district, which were seized under
B   sub-s. (1) thereof, pending before the Divisional Forest Officer,
    Hyderabad who is the Authorized Officer under s. 44(2A) of the
    Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 till the disposal of the criminal
    case pending against him before the Court of XVllth Metropolitan
    Magistrate, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for commission of alleged
    offences punishable under s. 20 (1) (c) (iv) and (x) and s. 20
    (1) (d) read with s. 29 (4) (a) (ii) of the Act.
c
           First as to the facts. On an information being laid that
    the respondent G. V. Sudhakar Rao was indulging in widespread
    illicit felling and removal of teak trees from the reserved
    forQst in Adilabad district, the Forest Range Officer, Flying
    Squad, Nirmal on July 18, 1982 seized teak timber measuring 42.7
    cubic metres valued at Rs. 1,71,000 from the residential house of
D   the respondent under sub-a. (1) of s. 44 of the Act. On July 19,
    1982, the Range Officer forthwith produced the seized timber
    before the Divisional Forest Officer, who is the Authorized
    Officer under s. 44 (2A) of the Act, along with a report that he
    had reason to believe that a forest offence had been committed by
    the respondent in respect of the seized timber. While the confis-
E   cation proceedings were pending before the Authorized Officer
    under sub-s. (2A) of s. 44 of the Act, on October 9, 1982 the
    respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Art. 226
    of the Constitution praying for xelease of the seized timber but
    the Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. In
    appeal pre<e+red by the respondent, a Division Bench declined to
F   grant any interim relief but directed the Forest Department to
    decide either to proceed with confiscation of the seized timber
    under s. 44 (2) of the Act or file a complaint regarding the
    commission of a forest offence before a Magistrate. Accordingly,
    the Forest Range Officer lodged a complaint before the XVIIth
    Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for trial of
G   the respondents for commission of alleged offences under s. 20
     (1) (c) (iv) and (x) and s. 20 (1) (d) read with s. 29 (4) (a)
     (ii) of the Act. On August 1, 1983, the respondents moved an
    application before the High Court under s. 482 of the Code for
    staying the proceedings before the Authorized Officer under s. 44
     (2) of the Act in view of the pending criminal prosecution. A
H    learned Single Judge (Ramachandra Raju, J.) by the impugned order
    directed stay of the proceedings before the Authorized Officer
     DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER v. G. V. SUDHAKAR RAO [SEN, J. ]         683


under s. 44(2A) of the Act till the disposal of the criminal case             A
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Aggrieved, the State bas
come up in appeal by way of special leave as the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge is of far-reaching conse-
quences.

      The precise question that falls for determination is                    B
whether where a Forest Officer makes a report of seizure of any
timber or forest produce and produces the seized property along
with a report under s. 44 (2) that he bas reason to believe that
a forest offence bas been committed in respect of such timber or
forest produce seized, can there simultaneously be proceedings
for confiscation to Government of such timber or forest produce               c
and the implements etc. by the AUthorized Officer under s. 44
(2A) of the Act if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been
committed, along with a criminal case instituted on a complaint
by the Forest Officer before a Magistrate of the commission of a
forest offence under s. 20 of the Act. The appeal turns upon a
proper construction of ss. 44 (2), 44 (2A) and 45 of the Act, as              D
amended by Act 17 of 1976.

      In   order   to   deal   with   the   question   involve4,   it    is
necessary to refer to the statutory changes brought about. The
Act, prior to its amendment by Act 17 of 1976 provided by s. 44
insofar as material, as follows :                                             E

           "44(1) Where there is reason to believe that a forest
           offence has been committed in respect of any timber or
           forest produce, such timber, or forest produce,
           together with all tools, ropes, ctajns, boats,
           vehicles and cattle used in committi<(g any such
           offence, may be seized by any forest officer or police             F
           officer.

            (2) Every officer seizing any property under this
            section shall place on such property, or the
            receptacle, if any, in which it is contained a mark
            indicating that the same bas been so seized and shall,            G
            except where the offender agrees in writing forthwith
            to get the offence compounded, make a report of such
            seizure to the magistrate :

           Provided that where the timber or forest produce with
            respect to which such offence is believed to have been
           committed is the property of the Central or State                  H
         684              SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985] .SUPP. 3 s.c.R.


A                    Government and the offender is not known, it shall be
                     sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a
                     report of the circumstances to the Divisional Forest
                     Officer.

                     (3) ***              ***            ***             ***
ll
                     (4) ***              •••            ***             ***
                     (5) The property seized under this section, shall be
                     kept in the custody of the forest officer not below
                     the rank. of a Forest Guard or the village headman
                     until the compenaation for compounding the offence is
c                    paid or until an order of the magistrate directing its
                     disposal is received."

         Section 45 of the Act, prior to its amendment, was in these
         terms   ~


                     "45. Where a person is convicted of a forest offence,
D
                     the court sentencing him shall order confiscation to
                     the Government of timber or forest produce in respect
                     of which such offence was committed and of any tool,
                     boat, vehicle other than a cart drawn by animals,
                     vessel or other conveyance or any other article used
                     iil committing such offence.''
 E
              The change in the law was brought about with a view to
         prevent the growing menace of ruthless exploitation of Govermnent
         forests by illicit felling of teak and other valuable forest
         produce by unscrupulous traders, particularly from the reserved
         forests by providing for a machinery for confiscation of
    F    illegally felled trees or forest produce by the Forest
         authorities. Under s. 45 of the Act as it then stood, where a
         person was convicted of "a forest offence, the Court sentencing
         him was empowered to order confiscation to the Government of
         timber or forest produce in respect of which a forest offence was
         committed and of any tool, boat, vehicle other than a cart draw
     G
         by animals, vessel or other conveyance or any other article used
         in committing such offence. Although there was a provision for
         seizure of such articles in s. 44 of .the Act, there was no
         provision in the Act enabling the forest officers to confiscate
         such timber or forest produce and the implements etc. used for
         coIIlllitting forest offences even in a case where he was satisfied
     H   that a forest offence had been committed. In view of this, the
     DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER·v. G.V.SUDHAKAR RAO [SEN, J,j       685


Forest Department was finding it difficult to curb the forest             A
offences effectively and quickly inspite of the fact that large
scale felling and smuggling of forest produce was on the
increase. Hence it was thought necessary to empower the officials
of the Forest Department seizing any property under sub-s.(l) of
s. 44, instead of merely making a report of the seizure to a
Magistrate, also to order confiscation of timber or forest                B
produce seized together will all the tools, boats, vehicles etc.
used in committing such offence. Statement of Objects and
Reasons: The intendment of the Legislature in enacting Act 17 of
1976 was therefore to provide for two separate proceedings before
two independent forums in the Act, one, for confiscation by a
departmental authority exercising quasi-judicial powers conferred         c
under sub-a. (2A) of s. 44 of the goods forming the subject-
matter of the offence, and the other for the trial of the person
accused o.f the offerice so col!lll1itted. It brdught about the follow-
ing changes, namely, : (1) In sub-s.(2) of a. 44 of the Act in
the openi!IK paragraph, for the words "make a report of such
seizure to the magistrate:", the following words and brackets             D
were substituted, namely

            ''Without any unreasonable delay either produce the
            property seized before an officer not below the rank
            of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized by
            the Government in this behalf by notification                 E
            (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer) or
            make a report of such seizure to the magistrate:"

(2) After sub-a. (2), Sub-as. (2A), (2B), (2C), (2D) and (2E)
were inserted. Sub-a. (2A), which is material for our purposes,
provides:
                                                                          F
            "(2A) Where an authorized officer seizes under
            sub-section (1) any ti.mber or forest produce or where
            any such timber or forest produce is produced before
            him under sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that a
            forest offence has been committed in respect thereof,
            he may order confiscation of the timber or forest             G
            produce so seized or produced together with all tools,
            ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in col!lll1itting
            such offence."

Sub-a. (2B) enjoins that no order confiscating any property shall
be made under sub-a, (2A) unless the person from whom the
property is seized is given (a) a notice in.writing informing him         H
    686             SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985] SUPP. 3 $.C.R.

A   of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such
    property; (b) an opportunity of making a representation in
    writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the
    notice against the grounds for confiscation; and (c) a reasonable
    opportunity of being heard in the matter. Sub-s. (2C) provides
    that without prejudice to the provisions in pub-s. (2B), no order
B   of confiscation under sub-s. (2A) of any tool, rope, chain, boat
    or vehicle shall be made after the owner thereof proves. to the
    satisfaction of the Authorized Officer that it was used in
    carrying the property without his knowledge or connivance, or the
    knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in
    charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle in comnitting
    the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and
c   necessary precautions against such use. Sub-a. (2D) confers power
    on an Authorized Officer not below the rank of a Conservator of
    Forests empowered by the Gov~rnment in that behalf, may within 30
    days of the date of the order of confiscation by the Authoirzed
    Officer under sub-s. (2A), either suo motu or on an application
    call for and examine the record of that order and may make such
    inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and pass such orders as
D   he may think fit. Proviso thereto enjoins that no order preju-
    dicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an oppor-
    tunity of ·being heard. Sub-s .(2E) confers a right of appeal to
    the person aggrieved by an order passed under sub-s.(2A) or
    sub-s. (2D). Such an appeal had to be preferred within 30 days
    from the date of communication to him of such order, to the
E   District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the
    property had been seized. The District Court was conferred the
    power after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, to
    pass such order as it may think fit and the order of the District
    Court so passed shall be final.
F        With the conferral of power on an officer not below the rank
    of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized by the State
    Government to order confiscation of the property seized under
    sub-s,(2A) of s.44, there was a corresponding change made in s.45
    of the Act. The amended S• 45 reads:
G              "45. Where a person is convicted of a forest offence,
               the court sentencing him shall order confiscation to
               the Government of timber or forest produce in respect
               of which such offence was committed and of any tool,
               boat, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any other
               article used ln committing such offence except where
H              an order of confiscation bas already been passed in
               :respect thereof under section 44. •
      DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER v. G.V.SUDHAKAR RAO [SEN, J.]    687


The Act also inserted s. 58A which reads :                             A

            "58A. An order of confiscation under sub-section (2A)
            or sub-section (2D) of section 44 shall not be deemed
            to bar the imposition of any other penalty to which
            the person from whom the property is seized is liable
            under this Act."                                           B

     We cannot but accept the contention of the learned Attorney
General appearing on behalf of the State that the effect of the
amendments brought about by Act 17 of 1976 is that the Act, as
amended, does contemplate two separate proceedings before two
different formus. It is urged tbat there is no conflict of             c
jurisdiction as s. 45 of the Act as amended by the Amendment Act,
in terms, curtails the power conferred on the Magistrate to
direct confiscation of timber or forest produce on conviction of
the accused. Emphasis was laid on the words "except where an
order for confiscation hE.s already been passed in respect thereof
under s.44" inserted by s.3 of Act 17 of 1976. The submission,         D
therefore, is that the power vested in the Authorized Officer to
direct confiscation of the seized timber or forest produce and
the implements etc. under sub-s.(2A) of s.44 and the power of the
Magistrate to direct confiscation of such property-on conviction
of the accused under s.45, are two separate and distinct powers.
According to him, the learned Single Judge proceeded on a              E
wrongful assumption that there is overlapping of the two powers
and therefore exceeded his jurisdiction under s. 482 of the Code
in directing stay of the confiscation proceedings before the
Authorized Officer under s.44(2A) of the Act. In support of his
submissions, the learned Attorney General drew our attention to
certain decisions of the High Court, particularly to a decision
of this Court in State of A.P. v. Smt. Baji Begua, (C.A. No. 1216      F
of 1979 decided on April 23, 1979) which, he says, the learned
Single Judge has wrongly tried to distinguish.

     The contentlon to the contrary by learned counsel appearing
for the respondents is that under sub-s.(2) of s.44 as amended,
the   Forest   Officer   has   either   to   produce   without   any   G
unreasonable delay the property seized before any officer not
below the rank -of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized
by the Gover!lllient in that behalf, or to make a report of such
seizure to the Magistrate. Much stress was placed on the use of
the words "either" and "or" in sub-s.(2) of s.44 of the Act for
the arguments that the power vested in the Authorized Officer to
direct confiscation of seized timber or forest     produce and the     H
    688             SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985) SUPP. 3 S.C.ll.

A   implements etc. under sub-a. (2) of s.44 of the Act and the power
    of the Magistrate to direct confiscation of such property on
    conviction of the accused under s.44 were mutually exclusive and,
    therefore, the Forest Department has the option of adopting
    either of the two courses. He contends that the Forest
    authorities having elected to prosecute the respondents for
B   commission of the alleged offences under s. 20 (l)(c)(iv) and (x)
    and s. 20(l)(d) read with s. 29(4)(a)(ii) of the Act, they cannot
    at the same time proceed with the confiscation proceedings before
    the Authorized Officer under a. 44 (2A) for confiscation of the
    timber or forest produce and the implements etc. seized or
    produeed before him. In other words, it is said that there cannot
    be two parallel proceedings before two distinct forums empowered
c   to direct confiscation of the timber or forest produce seized
    under s. 44 (2A) of the Act and 9, 45 and this would give riee to
    an anamoloua situation. The submission is that the order of
    confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer under a. 44(2A) on
    being satisfied that a forest offence had been committed IDUllt
    necessarily be subject to the finding of the court in a criminal
    prosecution as to whether such an offence under s.20 or a.29 baa
0   been committed or not and in ca1e the trial ends in an acquittal
    of the accuaed, the seized timber or forest produce and the
    implements etc. cannot be confiscated to the Government. Ba tries
    to distinguish the deci1ion of this Court in State of A.P, y,
    llmt. Baji llegul:l, supra, and submits that the Court did not lay
    down that after the Amendment Act the Magistrate has no
E   jurisdiction to confiscate the seized property. It is urged that
    the Court only held on the facts and circumstances before it that
    the High Court in llmt. Jlaji Begua'• case had taken an erroneous
    view of the report made by the Authorized officer under 1ub-s.(2)
    of s.44 of the Act while forwarding the accused to the Magi1trate
    and hence the proceedings before the Divisional Foreat Officer
F   had to go on. We are afraid, these contentions cannot prevail.

         Under the scheme of the Act, where a Forest Officer effects
    a seizure under sub-s.(l) of s. 44 of the Act of any timber or
    forest produce together with the implements etc., when he has
    reason to believe that a forest offence has been c0!1lllitted in
G   respect thereof, he has the discretion to either produce the
    property seized before the Authorized Officer or make a report of
    such seizure to the Magistrate. Where the timber or forest
    produce is seized by the Authorized Officer or the Forest Officer
    or where any such timber or forest produce is produced before him
    by any Forest Officer under sub-s.(2), the Authorized Officer has
H   to proceed to order confiscation thereof after follorlng the
     DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER v. G.V.SUDllAKAR RAO (SEN, J.j   689

                                                                      A.
procedure laid down in sub-as. (2B) and (2C). The order of
confiscation passed by an Authorized Officer under sub-a. (2A) is
liable to be interfered with within 30 days of the passing of
such order by an officer not below the rank of Conservator of
Forests empowered by the Government in that behalf under
sub-s.(2D) either suo motu, or on an application l!lS.de by the       B
person aggrieved after making such inquiry as he thinks fit.
Under the proviso thereto, no order prejudicial to any person
shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
The person aggrieved by an order of confiscation passed under
sub-s.(2A) or (2D) has a right of appeal within 30 days from the
date of collllDUnication to him of such order under sub-s. (2E) to
the District Court having jurisdiction over the ares in which the
                                                                      c
property had been seized. The District Court has been conferred
the power to pass such order as it illSY think fit after giving an
opportunity to the parties to be heard, and the order of the
District Court so passed is final.
                                                                       D
     The Forest Department may also decide to prosecute the
accused. In such a case, the Forest Officer shall, except where
the offender agrees in writing forthwith to get the offence
compounded, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate under
sub-s.(2) of 9,44, AB regards the implements used in committing
any such offence i.e. tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles etc.
                                                                       E
seized by the Forest Officer under sub-s.(l) and where he makes a
report of such seizure to the Magistrate undj<r sub-s.(2), the
Forest Officer is empowered by sub-s.(3) to release the same on
the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for the production
of the property so released, if and when so required before the
Magistrate. Sub-s.(4) of s.44 of the Act enjoins that upon
receipt of any report from a Forest Officer under sub-a. (2)           F
thereof, the Magistrate shall except where the offence is
compounded take such measures as may be necessary for the trial
of the accused and the disposal of the property according to law.
Sub-s.(5) directs that the property seized under sub-s.(l) shall
be kept in the custody of the forest Officer until the
compensation for compounding the offence is paid or until an           G
order of the Magistrate directing its disposal is received. Under
s. 45, where a person is convicted of a forest offence the Court
sentencing him shall order confiscation to the govermuent of
timber or forest produce in respect of which such offence was
committed and of the implements etc. used in committing such
offence, except where an order of confiscation has already been
passed in respect thereof under s.44. The words "except where an           H
order of confiscation has already been passed in respect thereof
    690             SUPREME COURT REPORTS       (1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.


    under s.44" appearing in s. 45 of the Act have the effect of
A
    curtailment of the power of the Magistrate to order confiscation
    on conviction of an accused of a forest offenc11 under s ,45, It
    would therefore appear that there can be no conflict of
    jurisdiction between the Authorized Officer "cting under
    sub-s.(2A) of s.44 of the Act to direct confiscation of the
    property seized under sub-s.(l) on his being satisfied that a
B   forest offence has been committed, and the Magistrate making an
    order for confiscation of the property so seized on conviction of
    an accused for a forest offence under s.45. The power of
    confiscation conferred on the Authorized Officer under sub-s.(2A)
    of s. 44 of the Act is separate and distinct from the power of
    the Magistrate to direct confiscation on conviction of an accused
    under s.45. There is no overlapping of their respective jurisdic-
c   tions as there is clear demarcation over the areas in which they
    operate.

         True it is, where any property is produced by an officer
    before a Criminal Court in an inquiry or trial, the Court may
    under s, 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 make aoy
    direction, as it thinks fit, for the proper custody of such pro-
D
    perty pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, At the
    conclusion of the inquiry or trial, the Court may also under s.
    452 of the Code make an order for the disposal of the property
    produced ~fore it and make such other directions as it may think
    necessary. Where 1the property is not produced before a Criminal
    Court in an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate is empowered under
F   s.457 of the Code to make such order as he thinks fit, respecting
    the disposal of the property. The general provision of s. 452 of
    the code with regard to disposal of property by a Criminal Court
    such as by destruction, confiscation or delivery to aoy person
    claiming to be entitled to possession thereof, and that of s.457
    investing a Magistrate to make an order for disposal of property
F   seized by a Police Officer and not produced before a Criminal
    Court during an inquiry or tiral, llD.lSt necessary yield where a
    statute makes a special provision with regard to forfeiture of
    any property and its disposal. In the instant case, admittedly,
    the illicitly felled teak trees seized by the Forest Range
    Officer, Adilabad were produced by him before the Divisional
G   Forest Officer, Hyderabad who is the Authorised Officer under
    sub-s. (2AJ of s. 44 of the Act, along with a report by him
    under sub-s. (2) thereof that he had reason to believe that a
    forest offence had been committed by the respondents. Merely
    because the Forest Range Officer also later lodged a complaint
    before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for trial of the
H



                                                •
  DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER v. G.V.SUDllAKAR RAO [SEN, J.]   691


respondents for commission of offences under ss. 20(l)(c)(iv) and   A
(x) and 20(1)(d) read with s. 29(4)(a)(ii) of the Act, did not
imply that the Authorised Officer was bereft of his power and
authority to direct confiscation of the seized timber and the
implements etc. under sub-a.(2A) of s.44 of the Act if he was
satisfied that a forest offence had been committed.
                                                                    B
     A close, careful .and combined reading of the various sub-
sections of s. 44, s. 45 and s. 5&.\ of the Act as introduced or
amended by Act 17 of 1976 leaves no doubt that the intendment of
the Legislature was to ·provide for two separate proceedings
before two different forums and there is no conflict of jurisdic-
tion as s. 45, as amended by the Amendment Act, in terms curtails   C
the power conferred on the Magistrate to direct confiscation of
timber or forest produce on conviction of the accused. The con-
ferral of power of confiscation of seized timber or forest
produce and the implements etc. on the Authorized officer under
sub-s.(2A) of s.44 of the Act on his being satisfied that a
forest offence had been comnitted in respect thereof, is not        D
dependent upon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of a
forest offence has been launched against the offender or not. It
is a separate and distinct proceeding from that of a trial before
the Court for commission of an offence. Under sub-s.(2A) of s.44
of the Act, where a Forest Officer makes a report of seizure of
any timber or forest produce and produces the seized timber         E
before the Authorized Officer along with a ·report under s.44(~),
the Authorized Officer can direct confisc;ation to Government of
such timber of forest produce and the implements etc. if he is
satisfied tha.t a forest offence has been committed irrespective
of the fact whether the accused is facing a trial before a
Magistrate for the comnission of a forest offence under s.20 or
29 of the Act.                                                      F

     As to the scope and effect of sub-a. (2A) of s. 44 of the
Act, different views appear to have prevailed in the High Court.
In State of Aodhra Pradesh V• P.K•    ...,.._.d& ors.' (1978)   1
A.P.L.J. 391, Jeewan Reddy, J. held that the general power of the
Court under s. 452 of the Code or that of the Magistrate under s.   G
457 to direct disposal of seized property, had to be read along
with and in the context of the special procedure prescribed by
the Amendment Act 17 of 1976. In that case, the Forest Officer
produced the seized forest produce and the vehicle used for the
comnission of a forest offence under sub-a. (l) of s. 44 before
the Authorized Officer along with a report as contemplated by
sub-a. (2) thereof for purposes of confiscation, and thereafter     H
    692             SUPRllME COURT REPORTS       [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.

A
    he produced the accused before a Magistrate for trial for the
    commission of sur.h offence. In those circumstances, the learned
    Judge held that the Amending Act by sub-s. (2A) of s. 44 created
    the Authorized Officer to be the competent authority to direct
    confiscation of any timber or forest produce on his being satis-
B   fied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof,
    and the seized property having been produced by the Forest
    Officer before the Authorized Officer along with a report for
    confiscation under sub-s.(2A) of s. 44 of the Act, the Magistrate
    could not have any jurisdiction to pass an order under s. 457 of
    the Code for the disposal of such property. A discordant note
    was, however, struck by a Division Bench consisting of Sambasiva
c   Rao, c.J. and Raghuvir, J. in s.t. Jlaji Begum v. State of Andhra
    Pradesh & Ore., (1978) 2 A.P.L.J. 191. The lea.med Judges held
    that the power of the Authorized officer to direct confiscation
    under sub-s.(2A) of s.44 of the Act and that of the Magistrate
    under s, 45 were mutually exclusive and, therefore, there could
    not be simultaneous proceedings for confiscation before the
    Authorized Officer under sub-s. (2A) of s.44 and also the trial
D   of the accused for commission of a forest offence under s. 20 or
    29 of the Act. Their conclusion was based on the use of the words
    'either' and 'or' in sub-s.(2) of s.44 of the Act and they held
    that the Forest Department had an option to adopt either of the
    two courses. The judgment of the High Court in Smt. Baji Begua's
    case was clearly wrong and was reversed by this Court in State of
E   Andhra Pradesh v. Smt. Baji Begua (supra), where it was observed:

               "In our opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the
               case, the order of the High Court is not fit to be
               sustained. The High Court has taken an erroneous view
               of the report of the Forest Ranger to the Magistrate
F              while forwarding the accused to him. The proceeding as
               to the confiscation of the property seized as also the
               car has got to go on before the Divisional Forest
               Officer."

         We find that a later Division Bench consisting of Kondaiah,
G   c.J. and Punnayya, J. in lfobd, Yaseen & Ore. v. nie forest llange
    Officer, Flying Squad, Rayachoti & Ors., (1980) 1 A,L.T. 8,
    approved of the view expressed by Jeewan Reddy, J. in P.L
    Mohalllnad'• case (supra), and held that the Act contemplates two
    procedures, one for confiscation of goods forming the
    subject-matter of the offence by the Authorized Officer under
H   sub-s.(2A) of s.44 of the Act, and the other for trial of the
    person accused of the offence so committed under s. 20 or 29 of
    DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER v. G.V.SUDHAKAR RAO [SEN, J.]   693


the Act. The learned Judges held that the Act provides for a
special machinery for confiscation of illicitly felled timber or A
forest produce by the Authorized Officer under sub-s.(2A) of s.44
enacted in the general public interest to suppress the mischief
of ruthless exploitation of Government forests•by illicit felling
and removal of teak and other valuable forest produce. They
further held that merely because there was an acquittal of. the
accused in the trial before the Magistrate due to paucity of
evidence or otherwise did not a necessarily entail in nullifying B
the order of confiscation of the seized timber or forest produce
by the Authorized Officer under sub-s.(2A) of s.44 of the Act
based on his satisfaction that a forest offence bad been
comnitted in respect thereof. We affirm the view expressed by .
Jeewan Reddy, J. in P.L xoo-ad's case and by Kondaiah, C.J.
and Punnayya, J. in Mohd. Yaseen's case.
                                                                    c
     The result therefore is that the appeal succeeds and is
allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court passed under s.
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for stay of the
proceedings before the Authorized Officer under sub-s. (2A) of s.
44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 are set aside and the
Authorized Officer is directed to proceed with the inquiry for
confiscation of the seized timber in accordance with law.         D




                                                 Appeal allowed.