1992 (2) TMI 383 - HC - Indian Laws

Judicial Intervention in Statutory Interpretation: Fines vs. Confiscation under Orissa Forests Act

The court held that judicial intervention is permissible to interpret legislation and fill gaps, citing Lord Denning's principle. It determined that fines ... - Issues Involved:1. Judicial Power to Legislate2. Legality of Confiscation3. Evidence of Inter-District Movement4. Mens Rea and Knowledge of Forgery5. Appropriateness of Imposing Fine in Lieu of ConfiscationIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Judicial Power to Legislate:The primary issue addressed is whether the judiciary can legislate, and if so, under what circumstances and to what extent. The court acknowledges that while this may seem like an attempt to usurp legislative power, it is within the judiciary's purview to interpret and fill gaps in legislation to give effect to the legislature's intent. The court refers to Lord Denning's principle that judges must 'supplement the written word so as to give 'force and life' to the intention of the legislature.' This principle has been supported by the apex court of India, which allows for judicial intervention in exceptional cases to prevent unjust results.2. Legality of Confiscation:The court examines the legality of the confiscation order under Section 56(2a) of the Orissa Forests Act, 1972, which permits confiscation but does not explicitly allow for the imposition of fines. The court notes that previous judgments have imposed fines in lieu of confiscation, suggesting a judicial precedent for such actions. The court ultimately decides that it can read into the statute the power to impose fines as an alternative to confiscation in appropriate cases.3. Evidence of Inter-District Movement:The petitioner argued that there was no evidence of inter-district movement of Kendu leaves, which is necessary to establish a forest offence under the Act. However, the court finds that the detection of the truck carrying Kendu leaves from Dhenkanal to Sambalpur is sufficient to establish inter-district movement. The court dismisses the petitioner's argument by stating that the detection in Sambalpur and the booking from Dhenkanal clearly indicate inter-district movement.4. Mens Rea and Knowledge of Forgery:The petitioner contended that he could not have known about the forged permit and thus lacked mens rea. The court acknowledges that the petitioner might not have known about the forgery, but it states that mens rea is not relevant for the confiscation of the vehicle. The court refers to a precedent where it was held that a vehicle could be confiscated even if the owner had no knowledge or connivance in the offence, provided the driver was involved. The court finds that the petitioner failed to prove that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent the illegal use of his vehicle.5. Appropriateness of Imposing Fine in Lieu of Confiscation:The court considers whether it is appropriate to impose a fine instead of confiscation. It notes that the value of the truck (Rs. 4 lakhs) is disproportionately higher than the value of the Kendu leaves (Rs. 60,000) being transported illegally. The court decides that confiscation would be too harsh a penalty and opts to impose a fine of Rs. 60,000, equivalent to the value of the Kendu leaves. The court emphasizes that this decision is made to balance the need for punishment with the principle of proportionality.Conclusion:The petition is disposed of by setting aside the order of confiscation and instead imposing a fine of Rs. 60,000. The vehicle is to be released upon payment of the fine. The court's decision reflects a nuanced approach to judicial interpretation, balancing statutory mandates with equitable considerations.