<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (5) TMI 1820 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312502</link>
    <description>Confiscation under the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 is a separate and parallel proceeding from criminal prosecution. The statutory scheme shows that the authorised officer may order confiscation on satisfaction that a forest offence was committed, and the process is not conditional on prior conviction or proof of the accused&#039;s guilt. The scheme is intended to secure speedy and effective control over forest produce and the means used in the offence. The Court also noted that an owner may still claim the statutory protection by proving absence of knowledge or connivance and due precautions, and rejected the view that conviction is a prerequisite for confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1820 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312502</link>
      <description>Confiscation under the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 is a separate and parallel proceeding from criminal prosecution. The statutory scheme shows that the authorised officer may order confiscation on satisfaction that a forest offence was committed, and the process is not conditional on prior conviction or proof of the accused&#039;s guilt. The scheme is intended to secure speedy and effective control over forest produce and the means used in the offence. The Court also noted that an owner may still claim the statutory protection by proving absence of knowledge or connivance and due precautions, and rejected the view that conviction is a prerequisite for confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>