2002 (4) TMI 918 - SC - Indian Laws

Exclusive authority of Authorized Officer under Karnataka Forest Act for interim release of seized forest produce clarified. Finality of confiscation bars Magistrate from granting interim custody of vehicle.

The Supreme Court held that the Authorized Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, has the exclusive authority to order the interim release of ... Which authority has the power to pass order for interim release of the forest produce seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963? Held that:- The Karnataka Forest Act is a special statute enacted for the purpose of preserving the forests and the forest produce in the State. The necessary corollary of such provisions is that in a case where the Authorised Officer is empowered to confiscate the seized forest produce on being satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed thereof the general power 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 Authorised Officer under the Act and if he finds that such power is vested in the Authorised Officer then he has no power to pass an order dealing with interim custody/release of the seized material. This, in our view, will help in proper implementation of provisions of the special Act and will help in advancing the purpose and object of the statute. If in such cases power to grant interim custody/release of the seized forest produce is vested in the Magistrate then it will be defeating the very scheme of the Act. Such a consequence is to be avoided. From the statutory provisions and the analysis made in the foregoing paragraphs the position that emerges is that the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge were right in holding that on facts and in the circumstances of the case it is the Authorised Officer who is vested with the power to pass order of interim custody of the vehicle and 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 Magistrate and the Sessions Judge on that basis. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Authority to pass an order for interim release of forest produce seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.2. Jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer versus the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of seized property.3. Interpretation of the terms 'sandalwood' and 'sandalwood oil' under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.4. Finality and challenge of the confiscation order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Authority to pass an order for interim release of forest produce seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963:The primary question was determining which authority has the power to order the interim release of forest produce seized under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The case involved the seizure of a lorry carrying sandalwood oil, which led to a dispute over whether the Authorized Officer or the Magistrate had jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle.2. Jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer versus the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of seized property:The High Court held that the jurisdiction to consider the request for interim custody of the vehicle lies with the jurisdictional Magistrate, based on the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 62(3)(b) of the Karnataka Forest Act. However, the Supreme Court found that the Magistrate and Sessions Judge were correct in holding that the power to grant interim custody of the vehicle is vested in the Authorized Officer, not the Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the Karnataka Forest Act, being a special statute, overrides other statutes, including the Criminal Procedure Code, in matters related to forest produce.3. Interpretation of the terms 'sandalwood' and 'sandalwood oil' under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963:The High Court drew a distinction between 'sandalwood' and 'sandalwood oil,' considering them as separate items of forest produce. It concluded that since 'sandalwood oil' was not explicitly mentioned in the provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the Authorized Officer, the Magistrate had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the term 'sandalwood' as defined in Section 2(18) of the Act includes 'sandalwood oil.' Therefore, the Authorized Officer's jurisdiction extends to sandalwood oil as well, making the High Court's interpretation incorrect.4. Finality and challenge of the confiscation order:The final order of confiscation dated 31.10.2000 was published in the official Gazette and was not challenged in any appeal or other proceeding, thus attaining finality. The Supreme Court noted that once the confiscation order became final, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order for interim custody of the vehicle. The High Court's order directing the Magistrate to consider the request for interim custody was therefore unsustainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. It reaffirmed that the Authorized Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act has the exclusive power to order the interim custody of seized forest produce, including sandalwood oil, and not the Magistrate. The finality of the confiscation order further precluded the Magistrate's jurisdiction in the matter.