State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchin- JT 2002 (4) SC 255

D.P. Mohopatra and Shivajraj V. Patil, JJ.

Karnataka Forest Act, 1963- Sections 62, 71-A, 71- G.

Criminal Procedure Code- Sections -482

The powers of confiscation of forest produce by the Forest Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act in lieu of the power of the Magistrate under the Cr.P.C

The present appeal filed by the State of Karnataka before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court of Karnataka.

In this case was called upon to decide which authority has the power to pass an order for interim release of the forest produce seized under Karnataka Forest Act, 1963? Is it Magistrate or prescribed authority under the Act?

The Forest Officials seized a lorry which was carrying Sandalwood oil on the allegation of illegal transportation of forest produce. When the forest Officials failed to trace out the owners of the seized materials, the Authorized Officer ordered for confiscation of the Seized vehicle and sandalwood oil. Later, application of the owner of the vehicle for interim custody of the vehicle before Judicial Magistrate and the appeal before Sessions Judge were rejected as the power to grant interim release vested in the Authorized Officer.

 The respondent then filed a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court held that it is the jurisdictional Magistrate by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. read with clause (b) of the sub-section 3 of the section 62 of the Act who has the jurisdiction to consider the request of custody of the vehicle allegedly used in the transportation of sandalwood oil. The Court held that the Magistrate and Sessions Judge erred in holding to the contrary. The High Court drew distinction between the expressions sandalwood and sandal wood oil and held that these are distinct items of forest produce and in the absence of any provision vesting the power of the confiscation in the authorized officer in respect of sandalwood oil, such power could not be exercised by him.

However, in appeal the Supreme Court observed the Karnataka Forest Act is special statute enacted for the purpose of preserving the forests and the forest produce in the state. under the Act certain powers viz., power of seizure, confiscation and the forfeiture of the forest produce illegally removed for the forest have been vested in the Authorized Officers. The position is made clear by the non obstante clause in the relevant provision giving overriding effect to the provisions in the Act over other statutes or laws.

The necessary corollary of such provisions is that in a case where the authorized officer is empowered to confiscate the seized forest produce on being satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed thereof, the general powers vested in the magistrate for dealing with interim custody/release of the seized materials under the Cr.P.C. has to give way. The magistrate while dealing with a case of any seizure of forest produce under the Act should examine whether the power to confiscate the seized forest produce is vested in the authorized officer under the Act and if he finds that such power is vested in the authorized officer then he has no power to pass an order dealing with interim custody/release of the seized material.

The Court held that the Magistrate and the Sessions were right in holding that it is the authorized officer who is vested with the power to pass order of interim custody of the vehicle and not the not the magistrate. The High Court was in error in taking a view to the contrary and in setting aside the orders passed by the lower court. The Court also observed moreover, the final order confiscating the seized sandalwood together with the vehicle used for transporting was published in the official gazette. The order being not challenged in any appeal or any other preceding it attained finality. In such circumstances, the question of the magistrate exercising power of interim custody of the vehicle did not arise at all.

Hence, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order High Courts order.