Judgment:
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
W.A.No.211/2009 Smt.
Delesua Devi Tiwari -Versus- State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Hon’ble Shri Justice S.A.Bobde, Chief Justice.
Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi, Judge.
Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents.
ORDER
(22.01.2013) Per : K.K.Trivedi, J.
By this appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant has called in question the order dated 5.12.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.4336/2008.
2: It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has completely failed to see that there was a provision of compounding of the offences if the value of the forest produce was less than Rs.1,000/-, as prescribed under the M.P.Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for brevity) and such an application made by the appellant was wrongly rejected by the competent authority.
A revision filed against such an order of the competent authority was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.
Hence, the writ petition was required to be filed.
Wrongly appreciating the provisions of law, it has been held by the learned Single Judge that the provisions of the Rules 2 aforesaid would not be attracted at all and, therefore, the writ petition has been dismissed.
3: Per contra, it is contended by learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents that the offences registered against the appellant were not attracting the provisions of transportation of the forest produce and, thus, the Rules aforesaid would not be attracted in view of the enabling provisions made under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).In the other enactment, there was no provision for compounding of offences and, as such, the findings have rightly been given by the learned Single Judge.
It is, thus, contended that the appeal is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed.
4: Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
5: In fact, the forest offences are enumerated in the Act.
The appellant was charged for contravention of notification under Section 30 or the Rules under Section 32 as prescribed in Section 33 of the Act.
The other charge against the appellant was violation of provisions of Sections 41 and 52 of the Act and violation of Rule 3 of the Rules aforesaid.
This was categorically held by the prescribed authority of the Forest Department by passing an order of confiscation issued against the appellant on 15.9.2006.
The appellant preferred a revision against such confiscation order before the Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision held that since a forest offence was committed, the confiscation proceedings were rightly done by the prescribed authority.
However, whether the offence charged against the appellant with respect to the Rules aforesaid was compoundable or not, was not considered.
6: The writ petition was filed by the appellant alleging that the offences only under the Forest Act were not alleged against the appellant, but she was charged with violation of provisions of the Rules and at least such a part of allegation made against the appellant was compoundable as value of the forest produce was No.3 more than Rs.1,000/- as prescribed under Rule 22(3) of the Rules.
It is the case of the appellant that this part has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and it has been held that since offence charged against the appellant was with respect to the offences enumerated under the Act and, therefore, provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules would not be attracted at all and there was no question of any compounding.
7: We have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
True it is that allegations have been made against the appellant with respect to the commission of forest offences which do not relate to transportation of forest produce.
As has been pointed out, Section 33 of the Act deals with the offences relating to violation of Section 30 which deals with power to issue notification reserving tree etc., and the offences relating to violation of Rules made under Section 32 of the Act, which deals with power to make Rules for protected forest.
However, provisions of Section 41 of the Act is enabling power of the competent Government or the State Government to make Rules.
Section 52 of the Act deals with penalties and procedure and specifically deals with seizure of property liable to confiscation.
So far as the offences under the aforesaid Sections of the Forest Act are concerned, there is no provision for compounding of offences.
Only the offences committed under the Rules are compoundable.
Merely because a part of the offences committed by the appellant could be compounded with, it cannot be said that other offences were also liable to be compounded.
In fact, the confiscation proceedings have been done as the offences under the Forest Act committed by the appellant have been found proved.
8: This being so, we do not feel that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is peRs.illegal.
Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge A.Praj.
4