Confiscation provisions may allow fine in exceptional cases where literal application would be disproportionate and defeat statutory purpose.

Section 56(2-a) of the Orissa Forests Act, 1972 was construed as permitting a limited fine in lieu of confiscation where literal application of confiscation would defeat the statutory purpose and produce a disproportionate result. Applying harmonious construction and the narrow doctrine of casus omissus, the Court read in a discretion to substitute fine for confiscation in exceptional cases. On the facts, the forged permit was not shown to be within the driver's reasonable knowledge, the vehicle's value greatly exceeded the value of the forest produce, and confiscation was treated as excessive. The confiscation order was replaced with a fine and release of the vehicle on payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 56(2-a) of the Orissa Forests Act, 1972, could be construed to permit imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation of a vehicle used in a forest offence, and whether the facts justified substitution of fine for confiscation.

Analysis: The provision expressly contemplated confiscation, but the Court held that where the statutory language left a gap and the object of the enactment would otherwise be defeated, it was permissible in an exceptional case to supply the omitted words. Relying on the principle of harmonious construction and the limited judicial power to cure a casus omissus, the Court read into the section a discretion to impose fine instead of confiscation where confiscation was not demanded by the facts, yet some punishment was required. On the facts, the forged permit was not shown to be within the driver's reasonable knowledge, the value of the truck was far higher than the value of the Kendu leaves, and confiscation was considered disproportionate.

Conclusion: The Court substituted the order of confiscation with a fine of Rs. 60,000 and directed release of the vehicle on payment of the fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a confiscation provision is discretionary and its literal operation would produce an unjust or disproportionate result contrary to legislative purpose, the Court may in an exceptional case read into it a limited power to impose a fine in lieu of confiscation.

---