Farzeen Sulthana v. Department

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to release the petitioner's Vehicle i.e Maruthi Suzuki Swift Red color, Registration No: TG16C7866, Model: 2025, Chassis No. MBHZCDESKS A266204, Engine No- 212EP1164243, R-ed Color seized in Crime POR no. 18lORl2O25-26, Dated: '19.06.2024 Khanapur POR No. 1917/15, Dated. 19.06.2025 Khanapur, forthwith, in the interest of Justice pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POLAMPELLI RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: MR. E. POORNA CHANDAR RAO GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: ORDER ,l THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.23932 OF 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents No.3 and 4 in not releasing petitioner's vehicle i.e., Maruti Suzuki Swift Red color bearing registration No.TG-16-C-7866, seized pursuant to the registration of POR No.1917/i5, dated 19.06.2024, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents No.3 and 4 to release the vehicle and to pass such order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the Iiling of the present writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be ttre owner of the vehicle i.e., Maruti Suzuki Swift Red color, bearing Registration No.TG-16-C7866 and it is submitted that the said vehicle was being used by the husband of the petitioner and the same was seized by the forest oflicials on the ground that they have recovered certain scales, skin and nails of the langolin' animal from the said vehicle. Petitioner is seeking release of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle is in the custody of the forest officials since 20.06.2025 and if it is kept idle for long period, it may get deteriorated. \ \ 2 TMD,J wP 23932 2025

3. Learned Government Pleader for Forests, however, submitted that the vehicle has been seized for the offences under Wild Life Protection Act 1972 (for short the ActJ and also under Telangana Forest Act and therefore, the application for release of vehicle has to be filed before appropriate Crimina-l Court and not before this Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported 1n Principal Chief Conserudtor of Forests and another vs. J.K,Johnson And Othersr alrd Madhukar Rao and State of Madhga Pradeshz. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tria:l Courts are not entertaining the applications for release of vehicles on the ground that the seizure of the vehicle is under the Telangana State Forest Act and outside their jurisdcition and therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court ior release of vehicle.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and materia-l on record this Court finds that ?angolin' animal falls under ' lzorrlro scc usc ' 1zoo81 t+ scc o2+ '0 3 TMD,J wP 23932 2025 Part-I, Schedule-I, Item No.28 of Wild Life Protection Act alrd therefore, possession of any part of such animal is forbidden under the said Act. Therefore, the offence has been registered under Sections 51(1), (1-A) and 51 (2) of Wild Life Protection Act 1972.

6. Section 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act empowers the authorities to seize the vehicle involved in the offence under Wild Life Protection Act. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has submitted an application before the forest officials for release of the vehicle, the same has not been entertained and the application filed before the concerned criminal court is also not being entertained on the ground that the offence is under the Telangana State Forest Act. However, this Court linds that that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited supra has clearly held that where the offence is alleged to have been committed under Wild Life Protection Act, it is oniy the trial Court which has jurisdiction to consider the application for release of vehicle. The relevant portion of J.K,Johnson's case are reproduced here under:- 4 .TMD,J wP 23932 2025 " 18. For a proper con sideration of the question raised before us as noted aboue, it is necessary'to read feu releuant sections of 3 2Oo0 (1) MPLt 289 4 (2008) 14 SCC 624 s (1e73) 1 SCC 726 6 (2OO2) 2 SCC 318 7 (2005) 2 SCC 4O9 8 (2010) 4 SCC 653 9 (2010) 3 SCC 83 the 1972 Act prior to amendment bA Act 16 of 2OO3 and Section 54 afier amendment u-tith ffict from Apil 1, 2003.

19. TLE 1972 Act tuas enacted bg the Parliament to prouide for the protection of utild animals and birds and for matters connected thereu;ith or ancillary or incidental thereto. The Act inter alia, seeks to regulate hunting of u.tild onimals and birds; regulate po.ssession, acqubition or tra nsfer of, or trade in, utild animals, animal articles and trophies and. taxidenng thereof and prouide penalties for contrauention of the Act. Peftinentlg, the 1972 Act has been subjected to ertensiue amendments from time to time. It has been amended bg Act 23 of 1982, Act 28 of 1986, Act 44 of 1991, Act 26 of 1993 and Act 16 of2OO3. 2O. The releuant portion of Section 39 in Chapter V, 'Trade or - Commerce in Wd animals, Animol articles and Trophies' is as follou.ts : "5. 39. Wild animals, etc., to be Gouernment propertg. -(1) Euery- (a), (b), (c) xxxxxx (d) uehicle, uessel, weapon, trap or tool that ha.s been used for committtng an offence and Lw.s been seized under the proubions of thb Act, shall be the propertA of the State Gouernment, and, uhere such animal i-s lanted in a sanctuary or National Park declared bg the Central Gouentment, such anifial or any animal article, trophg, urcured trophA or meat deiued from such animal or ang uehicle, uessel, uLeapon, trap or toot used in such hunting shall be the propertA of the Central Gouentment. h 5 TMD,J w? 21932 2025 (2), (3) (a), (b), (c) xxxxxx"

21. Chapter VI deals u-tith the preuention and detection of offences. Section 50 afier tts amendment bg Act 44 of 1991 and Act 16 of 20O3 to the ertent it is releuant, reads o-s follows : "5.5O. Pouer of entry, search, arrest and detention- - (1) Notu.tith.standing angthing contained in any other laut for the time being in force, the Director or ang other olficer authoised by him in thb behalf or the Chief Wlld Life Warden or the authori-sed olficer or ong Forest Officer or ang Police Officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, mag, if he ha^s reasonable grounds for belieuing that ang person has committed an offence against th;s Act,- (a) require anA such person to produce for inspection any captiue animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophg, unanred trophg, spectjled plant or part or deiuatiue thereof in his control, anstodg or possession, or ang licence, pennit or other document granted to him or required to be kept by him under the prouisions of thi.s Act; (b) stop ony uehicle or uessel in order to conduct search or inquiry or enter upon and search any premises, land, uehicle or uessel, in the ocanpation of such person, and open and search ang baggage or other things in his possession,' (c) seize anV captiue animal, u-tild anima\ animal article, meat, trophg or unqtred trophg, or anA specirt.ed plant or part or deriuatiue thereof, in respect of tl)hictt an offence against this Act appears to have been ammitted, in the possession of ang person together tuith ang trap, tool, uehicle, uessel or u)eapon used for committing anA s-ucll ofknce and, unless trc is sati.sfted. thot such person u.till appear and ansu)er ong charge u.thich may be preferred against him" anest him uithout uatan[ and detain (3) It shall be him: (2) 6 TMD,J wP 23932 2025 lau.tful for ang of the officers referred to in sub-section (1) to stop and detain anA person, uhom he sees doing ang act for uhich a licence or permit is required under the proubions of this Act, for the purposes of requiing such person to produce tlrc licence or pertnit and if s-uch person fails to produce the licence or penniq as tLLe case mag be, he may be arrested uithout unless he fumishes his name and address, and otherutise satisfies the officer anesting him th-at he will dulg ansu)er dnA summons or other proceedings LDhich maV be taken against him- -raanant, (3A) Any officer of a rank not inferior to thr.t of an Assistant Director of Wild Ltfe Preseruation or an Assistant Conseruator of Forests, uho, or ul.Lose subordinate, hn-s seired ang coptiue animal or wild onimal under clause (c) of sub-section (1) mag giue the same for custodA on the exeqttion bg ang person of a bond for the production of such animal if and uhen so reqired, before the Magistrate hauing jurisdiction to try the offence on account of uhich the seizure has been made. (4) Ang person detained, or things seized under the foregoing pou.ter, sholl forthu-tith be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt ' with according to latu under intimation to the Chief Wild Li,fe Wardert or th.e olficer authorbed bg lim in this regard. (5) to (9) xxxxxx.

22. The penalties are prouided in Section 57 of the 1972 Act. Thb Section too hts undergone clnnges in 1986, 1991 and 2OO3. Seclion 5/ has also been amended subsequentlA bg Act 39 of 2OO6 but that is not releuant for our purpose. Sub-section (2) of S-ection 51 reads as under: Penalties.' "s. 5l (1), (14), (18) xxxxxx(2) Wlrcn ang person b anuicted of an offence against this Act, the court trying the offence mag ord.er that anA captiue anima| utild animol, animal article, trophy, 7 TMD,J wP 23932 2025 uncured trophg, meat, iuory imported into India or an orticle made from such iuory, ang specifi.ed plant, or part or deiuatiue thereof in respect of u.thich the offence ha-s been committed, and ang trap, tool, uehjcte, uessel or weapon, used in the commission of the said offence be forfeited to the State Gouernment and that any licence or permit, held bg such person under the prouis[ons of this Act, be cancelled. (3), (4), (5) xxxxxx

23. Section 54 pior to amendment by Act 16 of 2003, read as under : "5. 54. Power to compound offences.-(1) The Central Gouernment may, bg notification, empouer the Director of Wild Life Preservation or ang other offi.cer and the State Gouernment mag, bg notification, empou)er the Chief Wlld Lik Warden or ang olfierr of a rank not inferior to that of a Deputg Conseruator of Forests, - (a) to accept, from ang person again-st uhom a reasonable suspicion exi.sts that he has committed an offence ogainst this Act, paAment of a sum of moneg bg uag of composition of the offence uhich such person b suspected to ha,ue committed; and (b) tuhen anA propeftA has been seized as liable to be forfeited, to relea-se the same on paAment of the ualue thereof as estimoted bg such oJfi.cer. (2) On payment of such stm of moneg or such ualue, or botl4 a.s the case mqg be, to such offtcer, the suspected person, if in qtstodA, sfat be di.sclurged, and tlLe propertA, other than Gouentment propertA, if ang, seized, shall be released and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shnll be taken against such person. 8 TMD,J wP 23932 202s (3) fhe officer compounding anA offence mag order the canceltation of any licence or permit granted under this Act to the offender, or if not empotuered to do so, mag approoch an officer so empoutered, for the cancellation of such licence or permit. (4) The sum of money accepted or agreed to be accepted as composition under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall in no case, exceed the sum of ttuo thousand rupees: Prouided that no offence, for uhich a minimum peiod of imprbonment has been prescibed in sub-section (1) of section 51, sholl be compounded."

24. After amendment bg Act 16 of 2OO3, Section 54 reads as follotus: "5. 54. Power to compound offences.-(1) The Central Gouentnent may, by notifi.cation, empou)er the Director of Wild Life Preseruation or ang other officer not belout the rank of Assi.stant Dtrector of Wild Life Preseruation and in the ca,se of a Stote Gouernment in the similar manne4 empou)er the Chief Wild Lik Warden or ang offi.cer of a rank not belout the rank of a Deputg Conseruator of Forests, to occept from any person against uhom a rea-sonable suspicion exists that Lte hcrs committed an offence against thi-s Act, pagment of a sum of maneg bg wag of composition of the offence which such person i.s suspected to haue committed. (2) On pagment of such sum of moneA to such officer, the suspected person, if in custodg, shall be discharged, and no further proceedings in respect of the olfence slwll be taken against such person. (3) The offi.cer compounding ang offence mag order the cancellation of ang Licence or permit granted under this Act to the offender, or if not empowered to do so, mag approach an offtcer so empowered, for the canrcellation of such licence or permit. 9 TMD,J wP 23937 2075 (4) The sam of maneg accepted or agreed to be accepted a.s composition under sub-section (1) shall, in no case, exceed the sum of fiLentg-f.ue thousan-d. rupees: Prouided that no offence, for which a minimum period of imprisonment ha-s been prescibed in slrull be section 51 compounded."

25. Chnpter VI-A lns been inserted in the 1972 Act bg Act 16 of 2003. This chapter makes prouision for forfeiture of property deiued from illegal hunting and trade. The applicability of Chapter VI-A is prouided in Section 58 A. This Chnpter is, accordinglg, applicable to (a) euery person utha hos been conuicted of an offence puni"shable under the Act uith imprisonment for a terrn of three Aears or more; (b) euery associate of a person referred to in clause (a) and (c) ang tnlder of ang propertg u.thich uas at anA time held bg a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) unlesi tlrc present holder or, as the case mag be, anAone u-ho held such propertg afier such person and before the present holder, i-s or u)a-s transferee in good faith for adequate consideration.

26. TlLe Statement of Objects and Reosors (Act 16 of 2003) annexed tuith Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2002, in clause (xui), proposed, "to prouide ttlat the vehicles, uteapons and tools, etc. used in committing compoundable offences are not to be returned to the offenders".

27. In the backdrop of th,e aboue sch.eme of law, tue haue to consider the correctness of the uiew of th.e High Court and tl'Le question of laut raised in the appeal.

28. One thing i.s clear tlwt the statutory prouisiors noticed aboue do not in explicit terms prouide for the forfeiture of the sei.zed I \ 10 TMD,J wP 23932 2025 item.s bg the departmental authoities from a person who is suspected to haue committed offence/ s against the 1972 Act. Chapter VI A uthich has been inserted in the 1972 Act bg Act 16 of 2003 th.at proutdes for forfeiture of propertg deiued from illegal hunting and trade is entirely different prouision and ha.s nothing to tlo utith forfeiture of the propertg seized from a person accused of commission of ofJence against tlte 1972 Act. btsofar as Sectiort 39( 1) (d) of the 1972 Act i.s concemed, it prouides tlot euery uehicle, uessel, weapon, trap or tool that hns been used for ammitting an offence and has been seized under the prouisions of tle Act slLall be tlrc propertA of the stote gouernment anl in a certain situation, the propertg of the central gouernment. The keg uords tn Ctause (d) of Section 39[1) (tre, "..... l.rl,s been used for committirrg an offence . .. .". Wat is the meaning of these word.s? Tle kind oJ' absolute uesting of the seized propertA in the state gouernment. on mere suspicion of an offence committed against the 1972 Act, could not haue been intended bg the Parliament. It is not euen scarcely disputed that euery enadment in the country ' nlust be irt conformity with our Constitution, In thi.s uieut, it is not suffcient nor the la u-t -makers intended to make it - to depiue a person of the propertA seized under the 1972 Act on accusatbn that such property has been used for ammitting an olfene against the Act. Section 39(1lH) does not get attracted uhere the item-s, suspected to haue been used. for committing an offence, are seized under the proubions of the Act. It seenls to us tLat it i.s implicit in Se,ction 39(1)(d that for this proui.sion to come into plag there has to be a categoricol finding bg the conTpetent court of latu about the use of seized items such as uehicle, ueapon, etc for commission of tlrc offence. There is meit in the submbsion of the learned aunsel for th,e respondent nos. 1 to 3 that if the consttuctton put upon Section 3911)ld bg Mr. R. Sunderuardhan 77 TMD,J wP 23932 2025 is accepted, the expression 'has been used for committing an offence' ocarring therein has to be read a,s, 'is suspected to haue been used for committing an offence'. In our uieut, this cannot be done-

29. Section 51(2) of the 1972 Act prouides for forfeifire oJ the propertA on conuiction; it sags, inter-alia, that tlhen any person is conuicted of an olfence agoinst tle Act, the court trying the offence may order that ang captiue onimal, uild animal, etc. in respect of u.thich the offence Lrr"s been committed and ang uehicle, uessel or u.)eapon etc. used in the commi.ssion of the said offence be forfeited to the state gouemment.

30. 'Forfeiture' ond 'sei.zure' haue different meaning and connotation [n latu. In 'The Laut Leicon' bg P. Ramanatha Aiyer [2nd edition (Reprint 2O0O)], forkiture' is defined as the diuestiture of specific propertA without compensation in consequence of some default or act forbidden bg latu. The u.tord forfeit' is defined in Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Tenth Edition): 'lose or be depiued of (propertA or a ight or priuilege) as a penaltg for turongdoing'. In R.S. Joshi etc. u. Ajit Mills Ltd & Anr.lo., this Court speaking through Krishna lger, J., usith reference to expression forfeiture' occurring in Section 37 (1) of the Bombag Sales Tax Ac| said, "thi.s word. 'forfeiture' must bears the same meaning of a penaltg 10 AIR 1977 SC 2279 for breach of a prohibitory direction"- While construing the u.tord forfeiture' uith reference to Sections 431 and 432 of ttte Bengal Municipal Act (15 of 1932), this Court stated in the ca.se of TLrc Chairman of the Ba nkura Municioalitu u. Lalii Raia & sonsl l that unless the loss or depiuation of the goods is bg uag of a penaltA or punishment for a cime, offence or breach of engagement, it u.tould not come utithin the definition of forfeiture. Houteuer, in light of the prouisions under consideration, ttte Court held that forfeihre of propertg LUds not one of the penalties or 72 TMD,J wP 23932 2025 puni.shments for onA of the offences under that Act. 'Seizure' on the other hnnd is generally understood to ntean a forcible taking possession. In lanu, sei-zure is the taking possession of propertg bg an offtcer under legal process. Sei-zure of propertg un-der legal process is o temporary measure- It is temporary interference utith the right to hold the propertA. Seizure und-er legal process b usuallg followed by conftscation or forfeiture or disposal in accordance tuith the proubions under u.thich seiztre has been made or th? propertA is retumed to the person from uham it hc"s been seized or to the lawful claimant to such propertg. While Section 39(1 )(d) prouides that sei-zed propertg under the 1972 Act used for commission of the offence/ s against the Act sho.ll be the 11 AIR 1953 SC 248 propertA of tlrc stote gouernment or the central gouernment as the case maA be, the other prouision-s like Section 51(2) and Chapter VI- A prouide for forfeiture of the propertA in certain situations. Hotoeuer, for the sei-z.ed propeftg used for commission of offence to be the propertA of the state gouernment or the central gouernment under Section 39(11(d), in our uieu.t, offence again-st the Act ho-s to be legallg a,scertained and adjudicated bg a competent court of juri.sdiction.

31. In Madhukar Rao4, albeit, the question was little different but this Court considered the ambit and scope of Section 39( l){dl. That matter reached this Court from a Fult Bench decision of the Madhgo Pradesh High Court. TLrc question before tlrc Full Bench uas u.thether as a result of deletion of sub-section (2) of Section lp u-.rithlrau-ting pou-ter of interim release, there exbted ang pouter uith the authorities under tlrc 1972 Act or the. Code to relea.se the uehicle used in tlrc course of alleged commission of offence under tte Act. The Futl Bench of the High Court held that anA propertA including uehicle sei.zed on accusation or suspbion of commission of offence under the ig72 Act can be released. by the Magbtrate pending tial in accordance with Section S \.\' c 13 TMD,J wP 23932 2025 read uith Section 451 of the Code. The F.ull Bench also held that mere seizure of ang property including vehicle on tl.Le charge of commission of offence would not make the properTA to be of the State Gouemment under Section 3911)(d) of the 1972 Act. Against the decision of the Full Bench, the State of Madhga Pradesh prefened special leaue petition in which teaue utas granted. This Court ertensiuely considered the stadttory prouisions and approued the uieu-t of the Futl Bench of the High Court that deletion of sub'section (2) and its replacment by sub-section (3)(A) in Section 50 of the 1972 Act had no effect on the powers of the Court to relea.se the seized uehicle during tLe pendencg of trial under the prouisiotts of the Code. While deating with Sectton 39/1)(d), this Court also approued the uieuL of the Full Bench of the High Court that Section 39ll)ld) u.tould come into plag onlg afier a court of competent jurtsdiction found that accusation and allegation-s made against the accused u.)ere true and recorded the finding that the seized article uas, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence. This Court said : AnA attempt to operationalise Section 39l1l@) of tle Act merelg on the basb of seizure and acatsatiors/ allegations leuelled bg the departmental authoities uould bring it into conflict tuith the constittttional prouisions and uould render it uncon stitl,ttiondl and tnualid.......... "

32. We are in complete agreement uith the uiett; of thi-s Court in Madlrukar Rao4 tlnt on the basis of seizure and mere accusations/ allegation-s, Section 39(1)(dl of tlrc 1972 Act connot be allotued to operate and if it is so done, it tttould be hit bg the constitutio nal p ro uisions.

33. Now, ute haue to see whether Section 5 afier its amendment bg Act 16 of 2O03, empou.)ers tLte specified officer to order forfeiture of the propertA, in respect of the offences of the 1972 Act, I t4 TMDJ w? 21932 2025 agoin st the Act suspected to haue been committed bg such persory on composttion of such offence. In other words, u-thether in the absence of any specific proutsion in Section 54 that the propertg sei.zed shnll be released, the specified olficer empou.tered to compound offences i-s authorized to order forfeittre of the serzed propertA and not retum the propertA to the person from u.thom it has been seized. 34- Mr. R. Sunderuardtnn, learned senior counsel for tle appellants utas ight in contending that the composition of the o|knce under Section 54 of the 1972 Act is not during the course of trial or in the trial of a compoundable offence. He is atso right irr hrs submrs sion that compounding under Section 54 is a departmental compounding and does not amount to an acquittal- But then, u.that is the sequitar? What i-s the effect of such departmental composition of offence under Sectiot t 54 of the 1 1 972 Act?

35. TLe obseruations made by thb Court in Bisuabalnn Das2 mag be useful in order to understand the effect of umpounding offence/ s. 'l'hat was a case in uhich this Court wa.s concerned utith the proui.sion for composition of forest offence under Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 - a prouision quite similar to Section 54 of the 1972 Act prior to amendment bg Act 16 of 20O3. This Court said: ".........lt must be bome in mind that although the marginal note to s. 62 of the Assam Regulat;on is "pouser to compound olfences" the utord "compounding" is not used. in sub-s. (1) clause (a) of that section. That prouision onlg empowers a forest ofrt@r b accept compensation for a forest offence from a person suspected of hauing committed it. The person so suspected can auoid being proceeded utith Jor the offence bg rendering compensation_ He mag think that he utas being unjustly suspected of an offence w r) 15 TMD,J wP 23932 2025 and he ought to defend hinlself or he mag consid.er it prudent on hb part to pag such compensotion in order to auoid the harassment of a prosecution euen uhen le b of the uieu that Lrc had not committed the offence. By adopting the latter course h.e does not remoue the suspicion of hauing committed the offence unless he is to haue such benefit confered on him bg some prouision of [aw. In effect the paAment of compensation amounts to his acceptance of the truth of the charge against him. Sub-s. (2) of s. 62 onlA protects him uith regard to further proccedings, but has not the elfect of cleaing his character or uindicating his conduat- "

36. There may be mgiad reasons, for a person, suspected of commission of offence, to applg for composition of the offence. Illhat is important is not the reason for composition of offence but tlrc effect of composition. The elfect of composition of offence has to be found in the statute itself. Section 54 proutdes that on paAment of money to the empowered officer, tlie suspected person, if in custody, stnll be di,schnrged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shatt be taken again-st such person. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 54, therefore, on composition of the offence, the suspected person is saued from ciminal proseantion, and from being subjected to further proceedings in respect of the offence.

37. Section 54(2) of the 1972 Act, prior to the amendment by Act 16 of 2OO3, authorized the empouered offtcer, on pagment of ualue of the property liable to be forfeited, to relea-se the seiz,ed propertg, other than the gouemment propertA. The prouision underutent changes u.e.f. Apil 1, 2003 and the proui,sion for release of the seized propertA has been deLeted. Does the prouision in neut Section 54(21 authorize the empouered olftcer to order forfeiture of the sei-zed propertA to the state gouemment? We think not. In the ftrst ploce, bg deletlon of such expression, it \\ 16 TMD.J wP 23932 2025 connot be said that the Parliament tntended to anfer power on the speclfted officer to order forfeiture of the seized propertg uhich is nothing but one form of penalty in the contert of the 1972 Act. Had the Parlioment intended to do so, it would hnue made an express proui-sion tn tLLat regard- Suclt confennent of pou.ter of penaltA upon tle specifi.ed officer cannot be reod bg implication in Section 54(21. Secondly, o-nA pouer of forfeiture conferred upon Exeantiue authoritg merelA on suspicion or accusation maA amount to depiuing a person of his propertg without authoitg of lau. Such power cannot be readilg reaci bg relying on the Statement of Objects and Reasons (Act 16 of 2OO3) without anv express prouision tn the statute.

38. Wag back in 1960, this Court in The Central Bank of India & Ors. u. Theu Workmen etc.12 said that tlle Statement of Objects and Recsons b rwt admissible for construing tte sectiory far less con it control the actual uords used. It has been reiterated bg thb Court time and again thqt the reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is for understanding the enactment and the purpose b to ascertain the conditions preuailing at the time the ' Bill was introduced and tlrc objects sought to be achieued by the proposed amendment; the Statement of Objects and Reasons is not ordinailg used to determine the true meaning of the substantiue prouisions of tlle statute. As an aid to the con struction of a statute, the Statement of Objects and. Reasons appended to the Bill, ordinaity must be auoided.

39. It is true that by Act 16 of 2003, the Parliament has consciouslg deleted from Section 54 th.e prouision concemtng release of seized propertg liable to be forfeited. on pagment of ualue of such propertg but the plain language that i-s retained in Section 54 (21 after amendment uhich reads, 'on pagment of such sum of moneg to such officer, the suspected person, if in cttstodg, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in a L7 TMD.J wP 23932 2025 respect of the offence shall be tqken again-st such person' does not shotD that the Legisloture intended to enTpower the spectfred off.cer under Section 54 to forfeit the sebed propertg used bg the suspected person in commisslon of offence against the Act. There is no replacement of the deleted words by any express prouision. Section 54 substituted bg Act 16 of 2003 does not speak af seized propertA at all - neither its return nor its forfeiture - while prouiding for composition of offence. The propertg seized. under Section 5O( 1)(c ) and Sectiort 5013A) has to be deatt uLith bg the Magistrate according to [a u.t. This is made clear by Section 5O uhich prouides that things seized shall be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt tuith accordirtg to lana. Section 54 substituted. bg Act 16 of 2OO3 does not empou)er tLe specified officer to deat with the seized property. In this uieut of the matter, tue are unable to accept the submission of the learned senior cowtsel for the appetlants that a comparatiue reading of pre- omended Section 54121 ond Sectton 54 l2l as substitltted b! Act 16 of 2OO3 makes the legi-slattue intent clear that seized articles slall be forfeited on composition of the offence under ttte 1972 Act. When the langaage of the statutory prouision is plain and clear no externol aid is required and the legi,slatiue intention has to be gathered from the longaage emploged. In our uietu, neither Section 5412) of the 1972 Act bg itself nor Section 54(21 read utith Section 39111/d) or any other proubion of the 1972 Act empowers anl authorizes the specifed officer under Section 54, on composition of the offence, to deat with the sei-zed propertg much Iess order forfeiture of the seized propertA used by the person suspected of commission of offence against the Act. 4O. In uieu.t of the aboue, the order pa.ssed bg tLe Con seruator of Foresfs, Nizamabad for forfeiture of the uehicle and ttuo iJles to tlrc state gouernment is de hors the proubions of the 7972 Act and unsustainable. The High Court has rightlg set a-side such 18 TMD,.I wP 23932 2025 ittegal order. Howeuer, the Singte Judge was not right in his order dated March 29, 2005 in directing the respondents therein G)resent appellants) to release the uehicle and riftes. The Diuision Bench also erred in maintaining the aboue direction. Since the item-s uLere sei.zed in exerci-se of the pouer under Section 5Ol1 )( c), the sei-zed-property has to be deolt with bg the Magistrate under of tlrc 1972 Act. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 must Section 50 accordingly applg to the concemed Magistrate for the retum of sebed items who obuiously will consider such opplicotion accordtng to law. I

41. We hold, as ue must, that a specified olficer empouered under Section 54(l) of the 1972 Act as substihtted bg Act 16 of 2003 to compound offences, Ltns no pouer, campetence or authority to order forfeiture of the seized items on composition of the offence bg a person u.tho is suspected to haue ammitted offence against the Act. Our answer to the qkstion fraflLed at tte outsel is in the negatiue.

42. The appeal is disposed of as indicated aboue with no order . as to costs. " B. [n view of the sarne, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the concerned Criminal Court for release of vehicle and il such an application is made, the concerned Crimina-l Court may consider the said application.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. r-\ 19 TMD,J wP 23932 2025

10. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.SRINIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, v \

1. The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Ambedkar Bhavan, State of Telangana, Hyderabad, TS. 2. The District Forest Officer, Nirmal District. 3. The Forest Divisional Officer, Khanapur Division, Khanapur 4. The Forest Section officer, Khanapur Forest Office 5. One CC to SRI POLAMPELLI RAJU, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS, High Court for the State of Telangana.

7. Two CD Copies M[,47 HIGH COURT DATED:1 010912025 ORDER WP.No.23932 of 2025 INJB(. 2U6 J.^ t PATC 7z 6).\ * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITON WITHOUT COSTS o\ '.1 '5