PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & Anr. v. J.K. JOHNSON & Ors.

Judgment

12 S.C.R. 1144 A B c PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR. v. J.K. JOHNSON & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2534 of 2011) OCTOBER 17, 2011 [R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972: Object of its enactment - Discussed. s.54(1) - Power of specified officer to order forfeiture of seized items - Held: A specified officer empowered u/s.54(1) of the Act as amended by the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003) to compound D offences, has no power, competence or authority to order forfeiture of the seized items on composition of the offence by a person who is suspected to have committed offence against the Act - Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003). E F s.39(1)(d) - Applicability of- Held: Is applicable if there is categorical finding about the use of seized items for commission of offence and not where seized items were suspected to have been used for committing offence. s.39(1)(d) and s.51(2) - Distinction between. s.54(2) - Prior to 'and after amendment - Held: s.54(2) of the 1972 Act, prior to the amendment by Act 16 of 2003, authorized the empowered officer, on payment of value of the G property liable to be forfeited, to release the seized property, other than the government property- The provision underwent changes w.e.f. April 1, 2003 and the provision for release of the $eized property was deleted - By deletion of the provision for release of the seized property, it cannot be said that the 1144 H PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & 1145 ANR. v. J.K. JOHNSON & ORS. Parliament intended to confer power on the specified officer A to order forfeiture of the seized property which is nothing but one form of penalty in the context of the 1972 Act - Had the Parliament intended to do so, it would have made an express provision in that regard - Such donferment of power of penalty upon the specified officer can'not be read by implication in B s. 54(2) - A/so any power of forfeiture conferred upon Executive authority merely on suspicion or accusation.may amount to depriving a person of his property without authority of law - Such power cannot be readily read by relying on the Statement of Objects and Reasons (Act 16 of 2003) without c any express provision in the statute - Interpretation of statutes. s.54(2) - Composition of the offence under - Held: The composition of the offence uls.54 is not during the course of trial or in the trial of a compoundable offence - Compounding u/s.54 is a departmental compounding and does not amount D · to an acquittal - s.54(2) provides that on payment of money to the empowered officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person - In terms 'of · sub-section (2) of s. 54, therefore; on composition of the E offence, the suspected person is saved from criminal prosecution, and from being subjected to further proceedings in respect of the offence. Forfeiture and seizure - Connotation of and distinction F between - Discussed. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons - Held: The reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is for understanding the enactment and the purpose is to ascertain the conditions G prevailing at the time the Bill was introduced and the objects sought to be achieved by the proposed amendment - The Statement of Objects and Reasons is not ordinarily used to determine the true meaning of the substantive provisions· of H 1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 12 S.C.R. A the statute - As an aid to the construction of a statute, the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill, ordinarily must be avoided - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 8 The question which arose for consideration in the instant appeal was whether a specified officer empowered under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended by the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003), to compound offences, has power, competence and C authority, to order forfeiture of the seized items, on payment of a sum of money by way of composition of the offence by a person who is suspected to have committed offence against the Act. Disposing of the appeal, the Court D HE.LO: 1. A specified officer empowered under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended by the Wild Life (Prot~ction) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003) to compound offences, has no E power, competence or authority to order forfeiture of the seized items on composition of the offence by a person who is suspected to have committed offence against the Act. [para 41] [1172-F-G]

2.1. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was enacted F by the Parliament to provide for the protection of wild animals and birds and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. The Act, inter a/ia, seeks to regulate hunting of wild animals and birds; regulate possession, acquisition or transfer of, or trade in, wild G animals, animal articles and trophies and taxidermy thereof and provide penalties for contravention of the Act. Pertinently, the 1972 Act has been subjected to extensive amendments from time to time. It has been amended by Act 23 of 1982, Act 28 of 1986, Act 44 of 1991, Act 26 of H' 1993 and Act 16 of 2003. Chapter VI-A has been inserted PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & 1147 ANR. v. J.K. JOHNSON & ORS. in the 1972 Act by Act 16 of 2003. This chapter makes A provision for forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade. The applicability of Chapter VI-A is provided in Section 58A. This Chapter is, accordingly, applicable to (a) every person who has been convicted of an offence punishable under the Act with imprisonment B for a term of three years or more; (b) every associate of a person referred to in clause (a) and (c) any holder of any property which was at any time held by a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) unless the present holder or, as the case may be, anyone who held such c property after such person and before the present holder, is or was transferee in good faith for adequate consideration. The Statement of Objects and Reasons (Act 16 of 2003) annexed with Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2002, in clause (xvi), proposed, "to provide that the vehicles, weapons and tools, etc. used in committing compoundable offences are not to be returned to the offenders". [paras 19, 25, 26] (1158-F; 1159-A·C; 1164-C·F] 0

2.2. The statutory provisions do not in explicit terms E provide for the forfeiture of the seized items by the departmental authorities from a person who is suspected to have committed offence/s against the 1972 Act. Chapter VI-A which has been inserted in the 1972 Act by Act 16 of 2003 that provides for forfeiture of property F derived from illegal hunting and trade is entirely different provision and has nothing to do with forfeiture of the property seized from a person accused of commission of offence against the 1972 Act. Insofar as Section 39(1)(d) of the 1972 Act is concerned, it provides that G every vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of the Act shall be the property of the state government and in a certain situation, the property of the central government. The key words in H 1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. A Clause (d) of Section 39(1) are, " ..... has been used for committing an offence ...... ". The kind of absolute vesting of the seized property in the state government, on mere suspicion of an offence committed against the 1972 Act, could not have been intended by the Parliament. It is not B even scarcely disputed that every enactment in the in conformity with the Indian country must be Constitution. In this view, it is not sufficient - nor the law makers intended to make it - to deprive a person of the property seized under the 1972 Act on accusation that c such property has been used for committing an offence against the Act. Section 39(1)(d) does not get attracted where the items, suspected to have been used for committing an offence, are seized under the provisions of the Act. It is implicit in Section 39(1 )(d) that for this provision to come into play there has to be a categorical finding by the competent court of law about the use of seized items such as vehicle, weapon, etc. for commission of the offence. [para 28] [1164-G-H; 1165-A F] 0 E

#3. Section 51 (2) of the 1972 Act provides for forfeiture of the property on conviction; it says, inter-alia, that when any person is convicted of an offence against the Act, the court trying the offence may order that any captive animal, wild animal, etc. in respect of which the offence F has been committed and any vehicle, vessel or weapon etc. used in the commission of the said offence be forfeited to the state government. 'Forfeiture' and 'seizure' have different meaning and connotation in law. In law, seizure is the taking possession of property by an G officer under legal process. Seizure of property under legal process is a temporary measure. It is temporary interference with the right to hold the property. Seizure under legal process is usually followed by confiscation or forfeiture or disposal in accordance with the provisions H under which seizure has been made or the property is PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & 1149 ANR. v. J.K. JOHNSON & ORS. returned to the person from whom it has been seized or A to the lawful claimant to such property. While Section 39(1)(d) provides that seized property under the 1972 Act used for commission of the offence/s against the Act shall be the property of the state government or the central government as the case may be, the other B provisions like Section 51 (2) and Chapter VI-A provide for forfeiture of the property in certain situations. However, for the seized property used for commission of offence to be the property of the state government or the central government under Section 39(1 )(d), offence against the c Act has to be legally ascertained and adjudicated by a competent court of jurisdiction. [Paras 29, 30] [1165-H; 1166-A-B-F-H; 1167-A-C]