Statutory interpretation limits confiscation powers: no implied right to release seized vehicles on fine in lieu of confiscation.

Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 confers a confiscation power where a forest offence is found, but it does not authorise release of the seized vehicle on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. The settled rule against judicial rewriting bars courts from adding words or supplying omissions under the guise of legislative intent, and the casus omissus doctrine applies only where a clear omission is apparent and necessity is shown. Section 68(1)(b) permits release on payment of value only within its own statutory conditions and cannot be used to import a general fine-in-lieu-of-confiscation power into Section 52(3).

---

---

Issues: Whether the power to direct release of a vehicle seized for a forest offence on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation can be read into Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and whether the High Court could sustain such a direction on the basis of the statutory scheme, including the power under Section 68.

Analysis: The scheme of Section 52(3) confers power of confiscation where the authorised officer is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, and the text does not contain any power to substitute confiscation with a fine. The settled rule of interpretation forbids the court from adding words, supplying omissions, or rewriting the statute under the guise of effectuating legislative intent. The doctrine of casus omissus cannot be invoked unless the omission is apparent within the four corners of the statute and clear necessity exists. The separate power under Section 68(1)(b) permits release on payment of the value of the seized property only when the State has empowered the officer and the statutory conditions for compounding are satisfied; that provision does not justify importing a general power to levy fine in lieu of confiscation into Section 52(3).

Conclusion: The direction to release the vehicle on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation was impermissible in law, and the High Court was wrong in reading such a power into Section 52(3).

---