Independent confiscation mechanism under forest law may proceed alongside criminal prosecution; general criminal procedure powers cannot override it.

A special statutory confiscation scheme under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act operated independently of criminal prosecution for the same forest offence. The amended provisions empowered the authorised officer to order confiscation of seized timber or forest produce on satisfaction that a forest offence had been committed, while limiting the Magistrate's confiscatory power where confiscation had already been ordered under Section 44. Section 58A confirmed that confiscation does not exclude other penalties, and the general powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure yielded to this special regime. Accordingly, confiscation proceedings could continue despite pendency of the criminal case, and the High Court was not justified in staying the confiscation inquiry.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for confiscation of timber under the Forest Act could validly continue before the authorised officer notwithstanding pendency of a criminal prosecution for the same forest offence, and whether the High Court could stay such confiscation proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The statutory scheme, as amended, created two distinct mechanisms: confiscation by the authorised officer under Section 44(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and criminal trial before the Magistrate for offences under the Act. The amendment replaced the earlier regime and expressly empowered the authorised officer to order confiscation where timber or forest produce was seized or produced before him and he was satisfied that a forest offence had been committed. The amendment to Section 45 curtailed the Magistrate's power to order confiscation on conviction where confiscation had already been ordered under Section 44. Section 58A reinforced that confiscation does not bar other penalties. The general powers under Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 yield to this special statutory scheme. The pendency of a criminal case therefore did not disable the authorised officer from proceeding with confiscation.

Conclusion: The confiscation proceeding and the criminal prosecution could proceed simultaneously, and the High Court was not justified in staying the confiscation inquiry. The decision is against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates an independent confiscation mechanism and expressly limits the criminal court's confiscatory power, confiscation by the designated authority may proceed notwithstanding a parallel criminal prosecution, and the general procedural powers of the criminal court cannot override that special scheme.

---