Holding

Section 52(3) does not empower release of a confiscated vehicle on payment of a fine; release is only permissible under Section 68 on payment of the vehicle's value, and the High Court’s interpretation was erroneous.

Summary

The State of Jharkhand appealed against a Jharkhand High Court order that released a truck seized for carrying coal in a protected forest area on payment of a fine, despite the truck being ordered confiscated under Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 52(3) authorises a fine in lieu of confiscation or whether such release is only permissible under Section 68 on payment of the vehicle's value. It held that the language of Section 52(3) is clear and does not contain a power to levy a fine, and that the High Court’s reading into the provision was a misapplication of statutory interpretation principles. The Court explained that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the judiciary unless absolutely necessary, and that the proper mechanism for release is the discretionary power under Section 68, which requires payment of the vehicle's value as compensation. Consequently, the High Court judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1977 (as amended) permits release of a confiscated vehicle on payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation.
Whether the court may read into Section 52(3) a power to impose a fine, invoking the doctrine of casus omissus.
Whether the vehicle can be released under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act on payment of its value.
What principles of statutory interpretation govern the construction of Sections 52 and 68.

Subjects

forest lawconfiscationstatutory interpretationcasus omissusIndian Forest ActSection 52Section 68compounding offencesvehicle seizurefine in lieu of confiscation

Judgment

STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. A
v.
GOVIND SINGH

DECEMBER 3, 2004
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Forest Law :

Indian Forest Act, 1977 (as amended by Bihar Act, 9 of 1990)
c
Sections 52(3) and 68-Confiscation of vehicle-Release of-By
imposition of fine in lieu of confisr;ation-Permissibility of-A track found
loaded with coal in a protected forest area was confiscated-High Court
ordered release of vehicle on payment offine in lieu of confiscation holding
that power to impose fine in lieu of confiscation could be read into under D
S.52(3)-Correctness of-Held,: When forest offence under S.2(3) is committed,
it is not the value of the forest produce which is relevant but the value
of the article liable for confiscation-Therefore, the vehicle may be released
on payment of the value of the vehicle and not otherwise-Hence, High
court not justified in reading into S. 52(3) the power ta direct release of
vehicle by imposing fine in lieu of confiscation. E
Interpretation of Statutes :

'::asus Omissus-Literal construction-Principle of-Held: Where the
"language" of the statute is clear, intention of the legislature is to be F
gathered from the language used-A construction which requires for its
support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of
words as meaningless has to be avbided-Causus omissus cannot be
supplied by the Court except in case of clear necessity.

The respondent's truck was found loaded with 11.8 tones of coal G
in a protected forest area. The Divisional Forest Officer directed
confiscation of the truck. However, the High Court directed release of
the vehicle on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation holding that _the
power to impose fine in lieu of confi~cation can be read into under
Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Hence the appeal. H
651
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The Single Judge by the impugned judgment held that
though the power to levy fine in lieu of confiscation is not there, the same
has to be read into Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 to fully
B effectuate the legislative intent. It was a case of casus omissus. The
conclusion is clearly erroneous. It is against the settled principles relating
to statutory interpretation. 1658-C-D)

2. When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous,
i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are
c bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. The
intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language
used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said
as also to what has not been said. 1658-E)

D JP. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 5 sec 134, relied on.

3. A construction which requires for its support addition or
substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless
has to be avoided. The Court cannot reframe the legislation for the very
good reason that it has no power to legislate. (658-F-G)
E
State of MP. v. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, AIR (1991) SC 772; State
of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel, JT (1998) 2 SC 253 and JP.
Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, 12003] 5 SCC 134, relied on.

F Crawford v. Spooner, (1846) 6 Moore PC I, referred to.

4. Where, therefore, the "language" is clear, the intention of the
Legislature is to be gathered from the language used. What is to be
borne in mind is as to what has been said in the statute as also what has
not been said. A construction which requires for its support addition or
G substitution of words or which results in rejection of words, has to be
avoided, unless it is covered by the rule of exception, including that of
necessity, which is not the case here. [660-C-D~EJ

Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested
H Forests, AIR (1990) SC 1747; Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal
STATE v. GOVIND SINGH 653

Corpn., AIR (1966) SC 1678; A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, A
[1984) 2 SCC 500; State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese, (1986) 4 SCC 746;
Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR (1992) SC 96 and J.P.'
Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, [2003) 5 SCC 134, relied on.

5. Two principles of construction - one relating to casus omissus
and the other in regard to reading the statue as a whole - appear to
B
be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omiss 1s cannot be
1

supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity and when
reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the
same time, a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that
purpose all the parts of a statue or section must be construed together C
and every clause of a Section should be construed with reference to the
context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on
a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute.
This would be more so if literal construction•()f a particular clause leads
to manifestly absurd or anomalous results, which could not have been D
intended by the Legislature. (661-C-D-E)

Dr. R. Venkatachalm v. Dy. Transport Commissioner, AIR (1977) SC
842 and CST v. Popular Trading Company. Ujjain, AIR (2000) SC 1578,
relied on.
E
Union ofIndia v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, AIR
(1990) SC 981; Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavaage, 218 FR 547;
Artemiou v. Procopiou, (1966) 1 QB 878; Luke v. !RC, (1966) AC 557;
Fenton v. Hampton, 11 Moore PC 345 and Jones v. Smart 1 TR 52,
referred to.
F
6. Keeping the aforesaid legal principles the inevitable conclusion
is that the High Court was not justified in reading into Section 52(3) of
the Act the power to direct release by imposing fine in lieu of confiscation.
[662-C)

7. On a combined reading of Sections 52 and 68 of the Indian Forest G
Act, 1927 (as amended by the Bihar Act, 9 of 1990) the vehicle liable

.. for confiscation may be released on payment of the value of the vehicle
and not otherwise. This is certainly a discretionary power, exercise of
which would depend upon the gravity of the offence. The officer is
empowered to release the vehicle on payment of the value thereof as H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A compensation. This discretion has to be judicially exercised. Section 68
of the Act deals with the power to compound offences. When the
discretionary power is conferred, the same has to be exercised in a
judicial manner after recording of reasons by the concerned officer as
to why the compounding was necessary to be done. [664-A-B-C]
B
8. Confiscation in terms of Section 52(3) of the Act is the immediate
statutory action which provides that when the forest offence as defined
in Section 2(3) of the Act is believed to have been committed in respect
of the seized vehicle, the authorized officer may confiscate the forest
produce and the vehicle involved in the transportation of the forest
c produce. Foundation for acting in terms of Section 52(3) of the Act is
the belief entertained by the concerned officer that the forest offence has
been committed. It is not the value of the forest produce, which is
relevant, but the value of the article liable for confiscation. In the
instance case it is the truck carrying the forest produce. [664-E-F-G)
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1405 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.2003 of the Jharkhand High
Court at Ranchi in W.P. Crl. No. 82 of 2003.
E
Gopal Prasad for the Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : Leave granted.
•
The State of Jharkhand has filed this appeal against the judgment of
learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi holding that
even though there was no specific provision in Section 52 (3) of the Indian
G Forest Act, 1927 (in short the "Act") as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990
(hereafter referred to as the 'Bihar Act'), a vehicle seized for alleged
involvement in commission of forest offence can be released on payment
of fine in lieu of confiscation.
...
H Background facts as projected by the appellants are as follows:
STATE v. GOVIND SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 655

On I0.4. I 997 at Barkagaon Protected Forest Area, a truck bearing A
No. BR 13-9041 was found loaded with l 1.8 tonnes of coal. Confiscation
Proceeding No.3/1997 arising out of Pelawal case No.28/97 was instituted
and show-cause notice was issued. The respondent filed reply to the notice.
After considering the same the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh directed
confiscation of the truck.
B
An appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh,
numbered as Case No.40/1997. By order dated 17.7.1999 the appeal was
dismissed. The matter was carried in revision by the respondent before the
Revisional Authority cum Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment
and by order dated 3.12.2002 the revisional authority dismissed the revision. C
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the
'Constitution') was filed before the High Court. It was the primary stand
therein that there was no prohibition in directing release of the vehicle on
payment of fine. in lieu of confiscation. The High Court held that there was
some dispute regarding weight of coal which was being carried. It was noted D
that the value of the coal was not established and considering the value of
coal which was being transported it would be inequitable to direct confiscation
and, therefore, it was held that to meet the ends of justice the power to
impose fine in lieu of confiscation can be read into under Section 52 (3) of
the Act. Accordingly, a fine of Rs.50,000 was imposed and the seizing
authority was directed to release the vehicle on payment thereof. E
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State
submitted that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is contrary to a
Division Bench's decision of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in the case
of Dilip Kumar Pandey v. The State of Bihar and Ors. Criminal Writ
Jurisdiction Case No.12 of 1997(R) where considering an identical issue it F
was held that there was no scope for directing release of the vehicle on
payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice.
... G
In order to appreciate the stand taken by learned counsel for the
appellants, it would be necessary to take note of Section 52 of the Act and
the State amendment by the Bihar Act.

"Section 52- Seizure ofproperty liable to confiscation: (1) When
there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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 of which the seizure has been made:

Provided that, when the forest produce with respect to
c which such offence is believed to have been committed is the
property of Government, and the offender is unknown, it shall
be sufficient ifthe officer makes, as soon as may be,, a report
I of the circumstances to his official superior."

D "Section 52 as amended by Bihar Act-Seizure and its procedure
for the property liable for confiscation: (I) 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, arms,
boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing
any such offence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police
E 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
F seized before an officer not below the rank of the Divisional Forest
Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf by
notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer) or
when~ it is, having regard to quantity of bulk or other genuine
difficulty, not practicable to produce the property seized before the
authorized officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal
G 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:

Provided that, when the forest produce with respect to
H which such offence is believed to have been committed is the
STATE v. GOVIND SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 657

property of Government, and the offender is unknown, it shall A
be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report
of the circumstances to his immediate superior.

(3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorized officer
upon production before him of property seized or upon receipt of B
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 proc:luce
so seized together with all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains
or any other article used in committing such offence. The Magistrate
having jurisdiction to try the offence concerned may, on the basis c
of the report of the authorized confiscating officer, cancel the
registration ofa vehicle used in committing the offence, the licence
~ of the vehicle-driver and the licence of the arms. A copy of the
order on confiscation shall be forwarded without undue delay to the
Conservators of Forests of the forest-circle in which the forest D
produce, as the case may be, has been seized.

(4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-
section (3) unless the authorized officer-

(a) sends an intimation about initiation of proceedings for
E
confiscation of property to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try
the offence on account of which the seizure has been made;

(b) issue a notice in writing to the person from whom the
property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the F
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; G
and

( d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the persons
or person to whom notice has been issued under clause (b ); a
hearing on date to· be fixed for su~h purposes.
H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A (5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools,
arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (other than
the forest produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to
in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorized
officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or
other article were used without his knowledge or connivance or as
B the case may be, without the knowledge or connivance 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."

C Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment held that though the
power to levy fine in lieu of confiscation is not there, same has to be read
into the statute to fully effectuate the legislative intent. It was a case of casus
omissus.

D The conclusion is clearly erroneous. It is against the settled principles
relating to statutory interpretation.

When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e: they
/
are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give
effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. The intention of the
E Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means
that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not
been said. [See J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajas than, [2003] 5 SCC 134]

As a consequence, as construction which requires for its support addition
or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless
F
has to be avoided. As was noted by the Privy Council in Crawford v.
Spooner, (1846) 6 Moore PCl: "We cannot aid the Legislature's defective
phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend and, by construction make up
deficiencies which are left there". The view was reiterated by this Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, AIR (1991) SC 772,
G and State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel, JT (1998) 2 SC 253.
Speaking briefly the Court cannot reframe the legislation, as noted in J.P.
Bansal's case (supra), for the very good reason that it has no power to
legislate.

H It is said that a statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary
STATE v. GOVIND SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 659

principle of interpreting or construing a statute is to gather the mens or A
sententia legis of the legislature.

Interpretation postulates the search for the true meaning of the words
used in the statute as a medium of expression to communicate a particular
thought. The task is not easy as the "language" is often misunderstood even B
in ordinary conversation or correspondence. The tragedy is that although in
the matter of correspondence or conversation the person who has spoken
the words or used the language can be approached for clarification, the
legislature cannot be approached as the legislature, after enacting a law or
Act, becomes functus officio so far as that particular Act is concerned and
it cannot itself interpret it. No doubt, the legislature retains the power to
c
amend or repeal the law so made and can also declare its meaning, but that
can be done only by making another law or statute after undertaking the
whole process of law-making.

Statute being an edict of the legislature, it is necessary that it is b
expressed in clear and unambiguous language. In spite of Courts saying so,
the draftsmen have paid little attention and they still boast of the old British
jingle "I am the parliamentary draftsman. I compose the country's laws. And
of half of the litigation, I am undoubtedly the cause", which was referred
to by this Court in Palace Admn. Board v. Rama Varma Bharathqn E
Thampuran, AIR (1980) SC 1187 at. P.1195. In Kirby v. Leather, [1965]
2 All ER 441, the draftsmen were severely criticized in regard to Section
22(2)(b) of the (UK) Limitation Act, 1939, as it was said that the section
was so obscure that the draftsmen must have been of unsound mind.

Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is
F
no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there
is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending
or altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the Judges should not
proclaim that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an

- exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line,
though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should
not be crossed or erased. This can be vouchsafed by "an alert recognition
G

of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance
to do so". (See: Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes
in "Essays on Jurisprudence", Columbia Law Review, P. 51.) H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A It is true that this Court in interpreting the Constitution enjoys a
freedom which is not available in interpreting a statute and, therefore, it will
be useful at this stage to reproduce what Lord Diplock said in Duport Steels
Ltd. v. Sirs, (1980] 1 ALL ER 529, at p. 542:

"It endangers continued public confidence in the political
B
impartiality of the judiciary, which is essential to the continuance
of the rule of law, if Judges, under the guise of interpretation,
provide their own preferred amendments to statutes which experience
of their operation has shown to have had consequences that members
of the court before whom the matter comes consider to be injurious
c to public interest."

Where, therefore, the "language" is dear, the intention of the legislature
is to be gathered from the language used. What is to be borne in mind is
as to what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said. A
D construction which requires, for its support, addition or substitution of
words or which results in rejection of words, has to be avoided, unless it
is covered by the rule of exception, including that of necessity, which is not
the case here. (See: Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian
of Vested Forests, AIR (1990) SC 1747 at p. 1752; Shyam Kishori Devi v.
Patria Municipal Corpn., AIR (1966) SC 1678 at p. 1682; A.R. Antulay v.
E Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984] 2 sec 500, at' pp. 518, 519). Indeed, the
Court cannot reframe the legislation as it has no power to legislate. (See
State of Kera/av. Mathai Verghese, (1986] 4 SCC 746, at p. 749; Union
of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR (1992) SC 96 at p. 101]

F The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but
what has been said. "Statutes should be construed not as theorems of
Euclid". Judge Learned Hand said, "but words must be construed with some
imagination of the purposes which lie behind them". (See Lenigh Valley
Coal Co. v. Yensavage, 218 FR 547). The view was re-iterated in Union of
India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, AIR
G (1990) SC 981.

In Dr. R. Venkatchalam and Ors. Etc. v. Dy. Transport Commissioner
-
and Ors. Etc. AIR (1977) SC 842, it was observed that Courts must avoid
the danger of a priori determination of the m_eaning of a provision based on
H their own pre-conceived notions of ideological sfri.icture or scheme into
STATE v. GOVIND SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 661

which the provision to be interpreted is somewhat fitted. They are not A
entitled to usurp legislative function under the disguise of interpretation.

While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and
cannot legislate it. If a provision oflaw is misused and subjected to the abuse
of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal· it, if B
deemed necessary. (See Commissioner ofSales Tax, MP. v. Popular Trading
Company, Ujjain, AlR (2000) SC 1578]. The legislative casus omissus
cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process.

Two principles of construction-one relating to casus omissus and the·
other in regard to reading the statute as a whole-appear to be well settled. C
Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court
except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the
four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should
not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section
must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed D
with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction
to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole
statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause
leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been
: intended by the Legislature. "An intention to produce an unreasonable
result", said Danackwerts, L.J. in Artemiou v. Procopiou, [1966] I QB 878, E
"is not to be imputed to a statute ifthere is some other construction available".
Where to apply words literally would "defeat the obvious intention of the
legislature and produce a wholly unreasonable result" we must "do some
violence to the words" and so achieve that obvious intention and produce
a rational construction. (Per Lord Reid in Luke v. /RC, (l 966) AC 557 where F
at p. 577 he also observed: "this is not a new problem, though our standard
of drafting is such that it rarely emerges".

It is then true that, "when the words of a law extend not to an
inconvenience rarely happening, but due to those which often happen, it is
good reason not to strain the words further than they reach, by saying it is G
casus omissus, and that the law intended quaefrequentius accidunt. ""But,"
on the other hand, "it is no reason, when the words of a law do enough extend
to an inconvenience seldom happening, that they should not extend to it as
well as if it happened more frequently, because it happens but seldom" (See
Fenton v. Hampton l I Moore, P.C. 345). A casus omissus ought not to be H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A created by interpretation, save in some case of strong necessity. Where,
however, a casus omissus does really occur, either through the .inadvertence
of the legislature, or on the principle quad semel out bis existit proetereunt
legislators, the rule is that the particular case, thus left unprovided for, must ~.
be disposed of according to the law as it existed before such statute - Casus
B omissus et oblivioni datus dispositioni communis juris relinquitur; "a casus
omissus," observed Buller, J. in Jones v. Smart (I T.R. 52), "can in no case
be supplied by a court of law, for that would be to make laws."

Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles the inevitable conclusion
is that the High Court was not justified in reading into Section 52 (3) of the
c Act the power to direct release by impos!ng fine in lieu of confiscation.

The matter can be looked at from another angle. Section 68 of the Act
reads as follows:

D "Section 68-Power to compound offences: (I) The State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, empower
a Forest Officer-

(a) to accept from any person against whom a reasonable
suspicion exists that he has committed any forest offence, other
E than an offence specifi1::d in Section 62 or Section 63, a sum of
money by way of compensation for the offence which such person
is suspected to have committed, and

(b) when any property has been seized as liable to
F confiscation, to release the same on payment of the value thereof
as estimated by such officer.

(2) On the payment of such sum of money, or such value, or both,
as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected person, if in
custody, shall be discharged; the property, if any seized shall be
G released, and no further proceedings shall be taken against such
person or property.

(3) A Forest-officer shall not be empowered under this section
unless he is a Forest-officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger
H and is in receipt of a monthly salary amounting to at least one
STATE v. GOVINDSINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 663

hundred rupees, and the- sum of money accepted as compensation A
under clause (a) ofsub-section_(l) shall in no case exceed the sum
of fifty rupee~."

The said section was also amended by the State amendment. The
amended provision reads as follows: B

"Section 68- Power to compound offences: (1) The State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, empower
a Forest Officer-

(a) to accept from any person against whom a reasonable C
suspicion exists that he has committed any forest offence, other
than an offence specified in clauses (c) and (d) to Section 26,
clauses (c) and (d) to Section 33 or Section 62 or Section 63, sum
of money by way of compensation for the offence which such
person is suspected to have committed, and D
(b) when any property has been seized as liable to
confiscation, to release the same on payment of the value thereof
as estimated by such officer.

(2) On the payment of such sum of money, or such value, or both, E
as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected person, if in
custody, shall be discharged, the property, if any seized shall be
released, and no further proceedings shall be taken against such
person or property.
F
(3) A Forest-officer shall not be empowered under this section
unless he is a Forest-officer of a rank not inferior to that of an
Assistant Conservator of Forest."

The power to act in terms of Section 68 of the Act is limited to offences
other than those specified in clauses (c) and (d) to Section 26, clauses (c) G.
and (d) to Section 33 or Section-62 or Section 63. Sub-section (l)(b) of
Section 68 is also relevant. It provides that where any property has been
seized as liab\e for confiscation, an officer empowered by the State
Government has power to release the same on payment of the value thereof
as estimated by such officer. The officer has to be empowered in the official H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A gazette by the State Government. To act in terms of the position the value
of the property seized or as liable for confiscation has to be estimated.
Therefore, on a combined reading of Section 52 and Section 68 of the Act
as amended by the Bihar Act, the vehicle as liable for confiscation may be
released on payment of the value of the vehicle and not otherwise. This is
B certainly a discretionary power, exercise of which would depend upon the
gravity of the offence. The officer is empowered to release the vehicle on
the payment of the value thereof as compensation. This discretion has to be
judicially exercised. Section 68 of the Act deals with power to compound
offences. It goes without saying that when the discretionary power is
conferred, the same has to be exercised in a judicial manner after recording
C of reasons by the concerned officer as to why the compounding was necessary
to be done. In the instant case, learned Single Judge did not refer to the
power available under Section 68 of the Act and on the contrary, introduced
the concept of reading into Section 52 of the Act, a power to levy fine in
lieu of confiscation which is impermissible. In the impugned judgment
D nowhere the value of the truck which was liable for confiscation was
indicated. It appears that the first appellate Court and the revisional authority
did not consider it to be a fit case where the vehicle was to be released and
were of the considered view that confiscation was warranted. They took
specific note of the fact that fake and fabricated documents were produced
to justify possession of the seized articles. In any event the respondent had
E not made any prayer for compounding in terms of Section 68 of the Act.

Confiscation in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the Act is
the immediate statutory action which provides that when forest offence as
defined in Section 2(3) of the Act is believed to have been committed in
F respect of the seized vehicle, the authorized officer may confiscate the forest
produce and the vehicle involved in the transportation of the forest produce.
Foundation for action in terms of Section 52(3) of the Act is the belief
entertained by the concerned officer that forest offence has been committed.
It is not the value of the forest produce which is relevant, but the value of
the article liable for confiscation. In the instant case it is the truck carrying
G the· forest produce.

Judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible, deserves to be set
aside which we direct. The appeal is allowed.

H v.s.s. Appeal allowed.