Compounding under the Wild Life Act does not itself authorise forfeiture of seized vehicles or weapons absent express statutory power.

Section 54 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, as amended in 2003, permits compounding of an offence on payment of money and requires the suspected person to be discharged without further proceedings, but it does not confer any express power to forfeit seized property. Forfeiture under Section 39(1)(d) applies only where the vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool has actually been used in committing the offence and that use has been legally established, while Section 51(2) provides forfeiture on conviction by the trying court. The seizure provisions in Section 50 require seized property to be produced before the Magistrate. An executive officer could not imply a penal forfeiture power from the omission of earlier language, so the forfeiture order was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a specified officer empowered under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, after the 2003 amendment, could order forfeiture of seized vehicle and weapons when the offence was compounded.

Analysis: Section 54, as substituted by the amendment, authorises compounding of an offence by payment of money and provides that the suspected person shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken. It does not contain any express power to forfeit seized property. Section 39(1)(d) applies only where the vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool has actually been used for committing an offence and that factual use has been legally ascertained by a competent court. Section 51(2) separately provides forfeiture on conviction by the court trying the offence. The seizure provisions in Section 50 require seized property to be taken before the Magistrate to be dealt with according to law. The omission of the earlier words dealing with release of seized property in Section 54 does not justify implying a new penal power of forfeiture in the executive authority. The Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot supply such a substantive power in the absence of clear statutory language.

Conclusion: The empowered officer had no authority under Section 54, alone or read with Section 39(1)(d), to order forfeiture of the seized items on composition of the offence; the answer was in the negative and the forfeiture order was unsustainable.

---