STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSWAROPCHANDRA

A                       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   v.
                            SWAROPCHANDRA

                               SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI AND
                          G.B. PATTA,NAIK, JJ.]

            M.P. Ven Upaj Vyapar Viniyaman (Adhiniyam), 1969/ForestAc~ 1927:

C         Ss. 19(1)(b), 22/s.52 and 53 (as amended by State Amendment Act 9
    of 1965).

           Seizure of truck with fore st produce-Confiscation of trnck-Wlit peti-
    tion-High Cowt holding that State Act did not provide for confiscation of
    truck-Appeal-Held, ss. 52 and 52-A as amended by Amendment Act 9 of
D   1965, ·having occupied the field in respect of confiscation of vehicles etc. and
    the procedure thereunder, the Legislature had not expressly provided such
    procedure again for confiscation under the State Act-High Court erred in
    holding that by operation of s. 22, the vehicle used for transp01tation of
    specified forest produces in contravention of the State Act has excluded
E   applicability of the provisions of the Central Act as amended by State
    Amendment Act 9 of 1965 in respect of vehicles etc.

            Constitution of India, 1950:

          Article 254 'occupied field' Forest Act, 1927, ss. 52 and 53 as amended
F   by M.P. Amendment Act 9 of 1965 and M.P. Ven Upaj Vyapar Viniyam
    Adhiniyam, 1969-Provision for confiscation of vehicle transporting the forest
    produce in contravention of State Act-Held, in view of the fact that the Forest
    Act as amended under the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 has already
    occupied the field for confiscation of the vehicles etc. it is not necessary again
G   to provide the same procedure under the State Act.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1380 of
    1988.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.83 of the Madhya Pradesh
H   High Court Court in W.P. No. 203of1983.
                                    684
                      STATEv. SWAROPCHAlIDRA                            685

      Sakesh Kumar for S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant.                       A
      Sunil Gupta, S.K. Gambhir and Vivek Gambhir for the Respondent.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division    B
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court made on 31st March, 1983 in
Misc. Petition No. 203 of 1983.

       The admitted facts are that since the truck bearing No. 9493 was
found carrying 22 logs of timber on October 4, 1983 without permit, it was C
seized on the said date by Divisional Forest Officer under the M.P. Ven
Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, No. 9 of 1969 (for short, the
'Act'). On October 5, 1983, a notice was issued to the driver of the truck
whether. he was willing to have the offence compounded. The truck was
valued at Rs. 70,000. The driver consented to the compounding of the
offenc:e and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000.. After following the prescribed D
procedure, by impugned order, the truck was confiscated as the value
thereof was not paid. The respondent challenged the power of seizure in
the writ proceedings in the High Court. The High Court held that the Act
did not provide the power of confiscation of the truck under Section
19(1)(b) of the Act. By operation of Section 22 of the Act, the Central E
Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 (for
short, the 'Forest Act') is not applicable to the confiscation of the truck.
The Divisional Forest Officer had not produced the truck before the
criminal court nor did he lay any charge-sheet for prosecution of the
offender. Therefore, the order of confiscation was without authority oflaw.
Accordingly a direction was given to release the vehicle. Pending appeal F
in this Court, interim direction was given to release the vehicle to the
respondent on furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 25,000.

      The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High
Court is correct in law? It is contended by Mr. Sakesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the State, that Section 15 provides for the seizure. Section 19    G
gives power to compound the offence including payment of the compensa-
tion for release of the vehicle ·seized and confiscation of specified forest
produce. Section 22 excludes only the specified forest produce. Section 52
of the Forest Act read with the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 gives
power for confiscation of the vehicle or receptacle used for transportation    H
    686                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   of the forest produce which includes the specified forest produce. There-
    fore, there is no necessity to expressly provide in the Act, the power for
    confiscation in Section 19 of the Act of the vehicle, tools or receptacle etc.
    used for transportation of the specified forest produce. Therefore, the view
    taken by the High Court is not correct in law.

B         Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
    hand, contended that the Act has occupied the field in respect of specified
    forest produce with power of seizure, power to levy penalty or collect
    compensation in lieu of prosecution, power to prosecute either for the
    forest offence or confiscate the forest produce. Having specified the
C   detailed procedure and identified the specified forest produce alone to be
    confiscated, by necessary implication, the Legislature intended not to take
    by action for confiscation of the vehicle, cart, receptacle or tools etc. used
    for offence of transport of forest produce. Unless it is an offence of forest
    produce under the Forest Act, Sections 52 to 55 of the Forest Act have no
    application to the facts. Thereby, there is no express power given by the
D   Legislature to the officer to confiscate the vehicle used for the transporta-
    tion of the specified forest produce. Thus considered, the High Court was
    clearly right in directing the release of vehicle.

          With a view to appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary
E to look into the relevant provisions under the Act. Section 2(d) defines
  "Forest Produce". Section 2(k) defines "specified area". Section 2(1) defines
  "Specified forest produce". Section 5 imposes restrictions on purchase or
  transport of specified forest produce except in accordance with the permit
  issued under the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 15 deals with
F power of entry, search, seizure of the forest produce given to the Forest
  Officer or vehicles used for the transport to satisfy the compliance of the
  Act or rules or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the
  rules made thereunder so as to ensure compliance of the provisions of the
  Act. The details thereof are not necessary for the purpose of the case. But
G Section 15(1)(iii) gives power to seize the specified forest produce in
  respect of which the officer suspects that any of the provisions of the Act
  or rules made thereunder have been, are being or are about to be con-
  travened, along with the receptacle or vehicle containing such produce, or
  the vehicle or boats, carts etc. used in carrying such produce. The
  provisions of Section 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
H (for short, the 'Repealed Code') are pari materia with the provisions of the
                      STATEv. SWAROPCHANDRA                             687

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would apply for such seizure as well. A
Section 19(1)(b) provides that when the property, other than a specified
forest produce, has been seized is liable to confiscation, to release the same
on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer. The State
Government may, by notification empower a Forest Officer. Under sub-
section (2) of Section 19, on payment of such sum or money, or such value
                                                                               B
or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected persons shall be
discharged, and the property other than the specified forest produce, if
any, seized, shall be released and not further proceedings shall be taken
against such person or property. Resultantly, if a suspected person pays
compensation of the value of the property seized other than specified forest
produce the same should be released and no further prosecution would lie C
and the proceedings would be closed. The receptacle or vehicle, boats or
carts etc. used for the carriage of the specified forest produce when seized,
the n~cessary consequence would be, the same procedure would be fol-
lowed for non-payment. What provision of law would be applied is the
question? Section 22 of the Act, prior to the Amendment Acts 15/1987 and D
16/1990, reads as under :

         "Nothing contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (No. 16 of 1927)
         shall apply to specified forest produce in respect of matters for
         which provisions are contained in this."
                                                                              E
        In other words, if there is a specified procedure provided in the Act
 in respect of the specified forest produce, by operation of the provisions
  of Section 22 of the Act, the provisions of Forest Act stand excluded. The
  question is : whether the content, i.e., specified forest produce, is liable to
  confiscation and whether on payment of value of vehicle etc. it is liable to F
  release and proceedings closed, whether on non-payment in respect of the
. container i.e. vehicle used in contravention of the provisions of the Act or
  rules and seized by the officer, is liable to confiscation under the provisions
  of the Forest Act or to be released? There is no provision for release of
  the vehicle by the officer except on payment of the value thereof. It is seen
  that when the Act was made with a view to prevent illicit transportation of G
  the forest produce or the specified forest produce and seizure and confis-
  cation have been provided for, could it be said that the Legislature in-
  tended to exclude the confiscation of the container, i.e., vehicle or
  receptacles or boats, carts or tools used for carriage of the specified forest
  produce, i.e., content, in contravention of the provisions of the Act? The H
    688                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A answer is obviously no.
        In our view, the High Court was clearly in error in reaching the
  conclusion that there is no such provision under the Act. It is seen that the
  Act occupies the field in respect of the specified matters enumerated
  thereunder. In view of the fact that the Forest Act, as amended under the
B State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 has already occupied the field for confis-
  cation of the vehicles etc., it is not necessary, again to provide the same
  procedure under the Act. In this behalf, it is relevant to look into the
  procedure provided in the Forest Act as amended by M'..P. Act 9 of 1965.
  Section 52 deals with the seizure of the property liable to confiscation and
C procedure thereunder. Section 52-A deals with the appeal against orders
  of confiscation. Section 52-B deals with revision before Court of Sessions
  against order of appellate authority. Section 53 gives power to the Forest
  Officer to release the seized property under certain ·circumstances
  enumerated thereunder. Thus, it could be seen that Section 52 as amended
  by the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 and having and Section 52-A,
D having occupied the field in respect of the confiscation of vehicles etc. and
  the procedlire thereunder, the Legislature had not expressly provided such
  procedure again for confiscation under the Act:-The High Court, therefore,
  was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that by operation of Section
  22 of the Act, the vehicle used for transportation of the specified forest
E produce in contravention of the Act has excluded the applicability of the
  provisions of the Forest Act, as amended by Act 9 of 1965 in respect of
  vehicles ·etc. It was confined only to specified forest produce.

          The order of the High Court stands set aside. The release order will
    be subject to the respondent's paying the balance amount, after deducting
F   the sum already secured. The sum of Rs. 25,800 be realised from. the
    security. The balance sum will be paid within a period of six months from
    today. If he does not pay the amount, it would be open to the appellant to
    seize the vehicle, if available, or proceed against any other property or
    person of the respondent.
G        Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and writ petition stands dismissed.
    No. costs.     -

    R.P.                                        Appeal and Petition dismissed.