This 2004 case was a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, which was beard and dismissed by Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice B N Agarwal. This landmark judgment is best known for its discussion on the question of Kattha as Forest Produce.
Issue:
- If Kathha qualifies as ‘forest produce’ within the ambit of the term’s definition in the Indian Forest Act.
- If confiscation proceedings are independent of Criminal Proceedings.
Fact:
Two petitions were filed u/s 482 of CrPC in MP High Court (Gwalior Bench). The seizure of stock of Kattha and Cutch under the provision of S. 52 of the Indian Forest Act (IFA), 1927 for violation of provisions of Rule 3 of MP Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961 and the consequent proceedings were quashed. Appeals were filed against the judgment. On May 2, 1988 the police intercepted a truck near Shinde Police outpost in the District of Gwalior within the State of MP. 281 cases of Katha manufactured by M/s Harsh Wood Products were loaded therein at their factory premises. M/s Finance Corporation purchased them without obtaining a transit pass as required under Rule 3 of the Transit Rules.
When the matter was reported to the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Gwalior confiscation proceedings u/s 52 of the IFA was initiated. An Order of confiscation was subsequently passed on May 23, 1988. The Conservator of Forest remitted the matter to the original authority, when an appeal was to him u/s 52A of IFA. The original authority, on remand, again passed an order of confiscation of Kattha seized, which was confirmed on appeal. The Revision application was admitted but during its pendency, the seized stock of Kattha was released by way of interim measure. On August 15, 1991 another truck was found loaded with 160 bags of cutch M/s Harsh Wood Products, which were purchased by M/s S.P. Sales Agencies. This too had no transit pass; it was seized and made over to the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Gwalior. The CJM refused the application filed by Respondent M/S s p Sales for the release of the seized articles and the session’s court upheld the same. The High Court allowed the section 482 of CrPC application preferred by S P Sales and the seized cutch was ordered to be released by way of interim measure.
Two separate S 482 CrPC applications were filed by the respondents for quashing the seizure of aforesaid stock of Kattha and cutch and consequent proceedings. On grounds, inter alia that the Kathha and Cutch were not forest produce within the meaning of Section 2 (4) of the IFA and confiscation proceedings could not have been initiated as no criminal prosecution was launched pursuant to the seizure. The SLP were against this order of the MP High Court
Precedential Value:
S P Sales Agencies has been subsequently cited only in Bomaby High Court criminal writ petition the case of Sardar khan v. Range Forest Officer AIR 1987 MP 162 (DB). The case uses S P Sales with respect to the second issue of the case- the question of independence of the confiscation proceedings from the criminal proceedings.
In this case a tractor trolley and other articles were seized as the carts were carrying teakwood. Justice R C Chavan while referring to S P Sales emphasized that the power of confiscation cannot said to be in a manner dependent upon launching a criminal prosecution
The Condition precedent for initiating the confiscation proceedings is commission of the forest offence. While dismissing the petition, the High court held that since the satisfaction of the authorized Officer in this regard was not vitiated in any manner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly refused tp intervene the matter. What decided in the S P Sales case was in line witht the precedents on the issue. The Case law has remained the same ever since. As for the question of whether the confiscation proceedings are independent of the launch of criminal proceedings, Courts held in the same light as S P Sales, before and after the case.