THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.versusKEDAR SAO AND ANR.

                                                                                                      r
                                                                                                      (

                                                                                                      L
       A                      THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.
                                           v.
                                  KEDAR SAO AND ANR.
                                                                                                 .,
                                       AUGUST 25, 2003                                                \.--




       B                 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]


                Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Amendments made thereunder by the Bihar
           Amendment Act 9 of 1990; Section 52/Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of
           Trade) Act, 1984; Sections 15 and 32:
       c                                                                                     •
               Seizure of illicit forest produce with trucks-Authority ordered
         confiscation of trucks-Affirmed by the Appellate Authority-On appeal, High
         Court quashed the order holding that the authorities had no power under the
         Indian Forest Act lo confiscate the vehicle-Exercise ofpower by the authorities              s-
         under the Bihar Amendment Act; vis-a-vis the Central Act-Held: The object
       D
         underlying these Acis are distinct and separate-Nature of offences under
         Acts are wholly different-Thus, the provisions of law under the Central Act
         and amendments made thereunder on the one side and' Trade Act on the other
         could co-exist-The provisions contained in Section 32 of the Trade Act are                   ~
         exclusionary in nature rendering the relevant provisions under the Central
       E Act inapplicable to specified forest produce-The provisions under the Trade
1,,!
         Act cannot be construed to be destructive of the powers conferred upon the
         authorities under the Central Act-The State Legislature cannot be denied
         power to enact different provisions in separate Acts or conferring distinct and
         separate powers upon more than one authority to meet any exigencies-High
         Court.erred in overlooking the special procedure under the Bihar Amendment
       F
         Act empowering the authorities with more comprehensive/stringent powers for
         confiscation of the property to the exclusion of the Courts/Tribunals-The
         power conferred on the authority cannot be curtailed/circumscribed-Hence,
         order ofthe High Court cannot be countenanced-Interpretation of Statutes-
         Constitution of India, 1950, Seventh Schedule.
       G
                 Words and Phrases:

                  Jorest produce', 'confiscation' and 'seizure '-Meaning of-Jn the context
           of Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act and Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation
           of Trade) Act.
       H                                        974
                     ST ATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO                       975
      On receipt of information, Forest Officers chased trucks of the          A
respondents and seized illicit forest produce with trucks under Section 52
of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act and submitted prosecution
reports against the respondents. Authority ordered confiscation of the
seized trucks. Appeals by the respondents/private parties were rejected
by the Appellate Authority. In the writ petitions filed by the respondents,    B
High Court quashed the order of confiscation holding that the authorities
had no power under the Central enactment (Indian Forest Act) to
confiscate the vehicle and that the order passed by the authority was
without jurisdiction. In another matter, Forest Officers seized 8 trucks
with forest woods and submitted a report to the authority. The authority
ordered confiscation of the illegal woods with trucks. Appellate authority     C
rejected the appeal. The writ petition and writ appeal were dismissed by
the High Court. Hence the present appeals by the State and the private
parties.

      It was contended for the State that the Bihar Forest Produce
(Regulation of Trade) Act was enacted for regulation in public interest        D
and the Indian Forest Act was amended by the Indian Forest (Bihar
Amendment) Act for the overall protection, management and to regulate
transit of the Forest produce; that the authority did not commit any
irregularity in passing the confiscation order; that Section 15 of the Trade
Act stood repealed by necessary implication by the Indian Forest (Bihar        E
Amendment) .(\ct, thus, impliedly the authority could apply the provisions
of the Indian Forest Act to the specified forest produce.

     On behalf of the private parties, it was contended that Section 32 of
the Trade Act excluded the applicability of the relevant provisions of the
Indian Forest Act in respect of the Forest produce as specified in the Trade   F
Act and thus, Section 15 of the Trade Act was attracted and that the
authority could take action under the Trade Act only.

     Allowing the appeals of the State and dismissing the appeals of the
private parties, the Court
                                                                               G
     HELD:l.1. The High Court not only misdirected itself as to the
nature of offence but also misconstrued the relevant provisions of the
Trade Act and ignored certain vitally important provisions contained in
the Bihar Amendment Act 9of1990. A proper comparison, scrutiny and
consideration of the relevant provisions of the respective enactments, the     H
    976                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Central Act (the Indian Forest Act) and the amendment by the State of
    Bihar in the Central Act on the one side and the Trade Act on the other
    would go to show that the object underlying them are not only distinct
    and separate but the essence, import, content and character as well as
    nature of offences and the essential ingredients to constitute such offences
B   under the respective enactments are wholly different and the offences
    under these two laws not only can co-exist but one cannot be held to be
    destructive of the other. [989-D, E, F)

          M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India and Anr., [1979) 3 SCC 431,
    followed. ·
c         Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker, [1971) 1 SCC 442,
    relied on.

          1.2. The provisions contained in Section 32 of the Trade Act are
    merely exclusionary in nature rendering the provisions contained in the
D   Indian Forest Act, inapplicable to only such of the specified forest produce
    as defined under the Trade Act, and that too only in respect of matters
    for which the provisions are contained in the Trade Act. (990-G]

          1.3; The Indian Forest Act a Central enactment, being a legislation
E   pertaining to an entry in the concurrent list, the State ofBihar has chosen
    to amend the said law in its application to the State ofBihar by introducing
    its own sentence by way of punishment and scheme of provisions providing
    for powers of entry, inspection, search and seizure as well as for
    confiscation of produce or other properties seized and the procedure
    therefor in its entirety. The Trade Act is more in the nature of Regulation
F   of Trade in the context of monopoly created in favour of the State and
    that too with reference to particular notified and _enumerated forest
    produce defined for the purpose of the Act to be 'specified forest produce',
    cannot be said to be destructive of the powers conferred upon the
    Authorised officer, the Appellate and Revisional Authoriti_es under the
    Central Act. Section 32 of the Trade Act, thus, has no effect of effacing
G   the Central Act as amended by the State of Bihar completely so as to
    disarm the concerned Authorities totally from having recourse to those
    provisions even in respect of offenees which pertain, arise and relating to
    the provisions contained therein. (991-A, B; D)

H         1.4. The assumption on the part of the High Court that once by virtue
                   STATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO                         977
of a notification under Section 1(3) and (4) of the Trade Act, a produce       A
become specified forest produce, any and every offence in respect of such
produce, could be dealt with only under the Trade Act only renders
meaningless the specific words, "in respect of matters for which provisions
have been made in this Act". Section 32 of the Trade Act cannot be viewed
merely from the angle of offences and punishments and procedure in             B
respect of offences. The Regulatory measures in the Central Act (The
Indian Forest Act) and the rules made thereunder on the one hand an.d
those under the Trade Act and the rules made thereunder on the other
differ and consequently, the main object of Section 32 of the Trade Act
seems to be to do away with the need to comply with and/or adhere to the
rigor of the restrictions in the Central Act, in addition to satisfying the    C
requirements of the stipulations contained in the Trade Act and the rules
made thereunder. (991-F, G, H; 992-AJ

       1.5. The assent of the President to the 1984 Trade Act may help for
its survival notwithstanding the Central enactment, the Indian Forest Act
in relation to matters provided for under the Trade Act by virtue of           D
Section 32 contained therein, but in view of the subsequent State enactment
viz. the Bihar Amendment Act 1990, which had also obtained the assent
of the President, the special procedure introduced under the Bihar
Amendment Act empowering the designated authorities with more
comprehensive and stringent powers to order for the confiscation of the        E
property to the exclusion of the Court, Tribunal or any Authority cannot
be curtailed, whittled down or circumscribed, in any manner, by any of
the provisions contained in the Trade Act. Section 52-C of the Indian
Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act which seems to have been completely
overlooked by the High Court, clinches the issue and dissuade any such
construction. There is also nothing wrong in more than one enactments          F
conferring the same powers to be exercised in the same or different
circumstances upon two different and distinct class of authorities and
merely because they may have some overlapping features alone, conflict
or inconsistency cannot be attributed to the legislature denying thereby
such powers to the category of officers upon whom the legislature has          G
chosen to specifically confer powers with the object of ensuring a deterrent
exercise of the same keeping in view the growing attempts to deplete forest
wealth. Any such construction which tends to defeat the very purpose of
conferring such powers upon the authorities of the department and
frustrates completely the object of the legislative amendment itself, is to
be meticulously avoided by courts, particularly in the context of overriding   H
    978                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A effect engrafted in Section 52-C of the Indian Forest (Bihar Ainendment)
    Act. Hence, the decision of the High Court cannot be countenanced.
                                                     (992-F, G, H; 993-A, B, q

        Smt. Chandrawati Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1992) Bihar Bar
    Council Journal 13, held inapplicable.
B
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 231
    of 1996.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.94 of the Patna High Court in
C Crl. W.J.C. No201 of.1993.
                                        WITH

            Crl. A. No. 232/96, C.A. Nos. 6643-44 of 2003.

            Aamrendra Sharan, Arup Banerjee, Ashok Mathur, S.K. Sinha, Ejaz
D Maqbool, Gopal Prasad and S.K. Singh for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            D. RAJU, J. Special leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos.1140-1141 of
    1998.
E
          Common and identical questions of law are involved in these appeals
    and, therefore, they are dealt with together.

    CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.231OF1996:

F          On receipt of secret infonnation, the Range Officer of Forests, Simariya
    Range, Chatra South Forest Division, along with a team of forest officials
    chased a truck bearing Registration No. UPF 7233 and seized about 445 Kgs.
    of illicit Katha together with the truck in exercise of powers under Section
    52 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred
    to as "Bihar Amendment Act, 1990") near Danapur, on 5.2.1991. The seizure
G   list was said to have been sent to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
    Chatra, by his letter dated 6.2.1991. On 11.3.1991, the Divisional Forest
    Officer, Chatra South Division, the Authorised officer, as per notification
    dated 2.1.1991 under Section 5 of the Bihar Amendment Act, 1990, infonned
    the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding initiation of action. The
H   Range Officer was said to have submitted prosecution report against the
              STATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO [RAJU, J.]                       979
respondents M/s Kedar Sao and Prem Kumar that the investigation in the             A
matter revealed that the katha seized was illegally manufactured after illegal
cutting of Khair trees from Delho, Jarhi, Kori, Chardram and Sima protected
forest within the Chatra South Forest Division and sought for the confiscation
of the seized truck. After hearing the respondents, the Authorised Officer by
his order dated 19.1.1992 ordered confiscation of the truck seized, as above,
in exercise of the powers under Section 52 of the said Act. The respondents        B
filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 52A
of the said Act, viz., The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.

      The respondents seem to have also filed Crl. Writ jurisdiction case
No.201 of 1993 (R) seeking to quash the order dated 19.1.92 and also for the       C
release of the truck in the meantime. A Division Bench of the Patna High
Court (Ranchi Bench) by an order dated 3.9.94 allowed the writ petition on
the ground that the order dated 19.1.92 was totally without jurisdiction and
the power to order for confiscation or forfeiture of the vehicle involved in the
offence was with the court and not the Divisional Forest Officer. The High
Court while accepting the stand of the private party held that the provisions      D
of Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred
to as "Trade Act"), alone applied to the case by virtue of Section 32 of the
said Act and the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 stood excluded
and consequently the Authorities under the central enactment had no powers
to confiscate the vehicle and the order passed was wholly without jurisdiction.    E
The matter was left for the decision of the competent court as to whether the
respondents have committed any offence and observing further that it was for
that Court to pass any such orders. Hence, this appeal by the State of Bihar
and the Divisional Forest Officer.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 232 of 1996:
                                                                                   F
      The seizure effected on 27.3.1993, which is the subject matter of this
appeal, by the Forest Officials at Hunterganj was of the truck bearing
Registration No. BRM-9615 while it was found carrying illicit forest produce
like Harra, Gond, and Katha and the seizure list prepared therefor appears to
have been sent forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The           G
Range Officer of forest was said to have moved on 29 .3 .1993 the Authorised
Officer to confiscate the seized forest produce and the truck and the said
Authority appears to have initiated action as in the· other case, and informed
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, of the said move. Notice of such
proceedings was said to have been issued to the owner of the vehicle Mohan         H
    980                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] ·SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Lal Vaidya to show cause against the proposals and on the said person
    informing that the vehicle was under an agreement with the respondent Sri
    Kant Prasad Pradhan, he was also issued with a notice to show cause. After
    hearing the respondent, by an order dated 3.5.1993, the request for release of
    the truck came to be rejected since the respondent could not prove his
    ownership of the same. While so, the respondent filed Criminal W.J.C. No.227
B   of 1993 (R) seeking to quash the confiscation proceedings and for the release
    of the truck. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) by
    an order dated 3.9.94 allowed the writ petition of the respondent on similar
                                                                                        ,
    grounds as in the other writ petition, passing a similar nature of order. Hence,
    this appeal.

C Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.1140-1141 of 1998:
          On 26.1.1995, the District Forest Officer, Gaya, Bihar, along with a
    team of forest officials seized eight trucks including those of the two of the
    appe)lants at Upwan Hotel near Mohaniya within Bhabhna District loaded
D   with Khair wobd (Acacia Catechu). The report of the said seizure was said
    to have been also sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhna. The District
    Forest Officer seems to have also·moved on 27.1.1995 the Divisional Forest
    Officer, Shahbad at Sasaram, Bihar, for initiation of confiscation proceedings
    in respect of all those trucks and the illegal Khair wood, which they were
    found to carry. On 28.1.1995, the Divisional Forest Officer, who is the
E   Authorised Officer for the purpose, initiated proceedings to show cause against
    the confiscation and forfeiture of the seized trucks and goods. After hearing
    the respondents and others, by an order dated 25.9.1995, the Authorised
    Officer ordered confiscation of the illegal Khair wood as well as the trucks
    used for its transportation. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority
    viz., The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kaiinur, Bhabhna, was also
F   dismissed on 24.1. I 996. Further Revision filed thereon also came to be rejected
    on 21.6.1997. At this stage, the respondents filed CWJC Nos.6542 and 6543
    of 1997 seeking to quash the above orders and for release of their trucks. A
    learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court by an order dated 28.8.1997
    dismissed the Writ Petitions. Thereupon, LP.A. Nos. 1206 and 1207 of 1997
G   came to be filed and a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
    appeals on 20.10.1997. The Division Bench held that having regard to the
    magnitude of the offence, in appropriate cases confiscation has to be resorted
    to as is provided in law. Hence, these appeals, taking advantage of the other
    appeals already pending before this Court.

H         Heard Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior Counsel for the State,
                 STATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO [RAJU, J.]                     981
and Shri S.K. Sinha for private respondent in Cr!. Appeal No.231 of 1996            A
and the appellants in two appeals filed by the private parties and other counsel.
The stand taken on behalf of the State in these appeals, as before the High
Court, was that the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984
was enacted only to provide for regulation in public interest the Trade and
related matters of certain forest produce notified thereunder by creation of        B
the State Monopoly in such trade in the State of Bihar and it is the Indian
Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the State by the Indian Forest (Bihar
Amendment) Act (Bihar Act 9 of 1990) which was enacted for the overall
protection and management of forests and forest produce and regulate the
transit of such forest produce and the rules made and notifications issued
thereunder that applied to the cases on hand and consequently the impugned          C
orders of confiscation are quite legal and well within the competency of the
Authorised Officer. In support of such stand reliance was placed upon the
relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Bihar Timber and
other Forest Produce Regulation of Transit Rules, 1973, the provisions of the
Bihar Amendment Act (Act 9 of 1990) and the Trade Act. It is further urged
that cutting, felling, girdling, lopping and tapping, etc. of forest trees and      D
forest produce and/or manufacture of forest produce, as notified therein, are
squarely covered under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar Act
9 of 1990 and by virtue of Section 52 (3), as amended by the Bihar Amendment
Act (Act 9 of 1990), power to confiscate inhere in the forest officials notified
for the purpose and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the orders           E
passed in all these cases. Section 15 of the Trade Act, according to the stand
of the State, stood repealed by necessary implication by Bihar Amendment
Act 9of1990 and, in any event, Section 15 cannot be claimed to exclude the
Indian Forest Act even in respect of matters not dealt with or provided fo~·
 under the Trade Act. The forest produce seized in all these cases, viz., Katha,
Gond, Harra, was said to have been illegally collected from the trees unlawfully    F
felled and by unlawful tapping and collection of such produce and, therefore,
the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, as amended by the Bihar Amendment
Act and the Rules made thereunder, alone are attracted to these cases and
rightly applied, too. The decision of the High Court, taking a contra view,
would, according to the State, defeat the very object of the Indian Forest Act,     G
as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990, to conserve and protect the forest wealth
and arrest and curb large scale of illegal falling and exploitation of forest
 wealth, said to be rampant of late, in the State.

      Per contra, the learned counsel for the private parties, while drawing
inspiration from and adopting the reasoning of the High Court, contended            H
    982                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   that Section 32 of the Trade Act excluded the applicability of the Indian
    Forest Act, 1927 to forest produce specified in the Trade Act, that therefore
    it is only Section 15 etc. of the Trade Act which would be attracted and any
    action could be taken under the said Act only. Reliance has also been placed
    on yet another decision of a Division Bench reported in Smt. Chandrawati
    Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1992, Bihar Bar Coun~il Journal 13, taking an
B   identical view as in these cases under what is claimed to be a similar situation
    arising with reference to the Indian Forest Act and the Bihar Kendu Leaves
    (Control of Trade) Act, 1973.

           So far as Criminal Appeal No.231 of 1996 is concerned, the vehicle in
C   question was found unlawfully carrying 445 Kg. illegal Katha biscuits, which
    were concealed in a specially designed secret chamber built inside the truck
    behind the driving seat and the seizure could be effected after a long chase
    of the fleeing vehicle for contravention of Sections 33(1 ), 41(1) and 42(1) of
    Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act and Section 20 of the Trade Act. Our
    attention was drawn to show from the Schedule of the Trade Act that Khair
D   (Acacia Catechu) alone is notified and a manufactured product from the said
    Khair like Katha biscuits seized and confiscated are not covered by the Trade
    Act. Katha biscuits are said to be prepared from the heartwood of Khair by
    boiling and once again after reboiling, the thick liquid and by pouring it into
    moulds to suit the needs of the manufacturer. On the other hand, the
E   notification issued by the State Government on 19.10.1959, under Section 30
    of the Indian Fore st Act, 192 7, not ori ly declared the species of trees
    enumerated therein as reserved in the protected forest of Chatra Forest Division
    for purposes of Section 29 (2) but also prohibited the doing or commission
    of certain kind of activities including the collection or subjection to any
    manufacturing process and removal of any forest produce. This would, as
F   claimed for the State, go to show, at any rate, by the very nature of the
    commodity itself, the inapplicability of Trade Act.

           In order to appreciate the claims on behalf of the parties on either side
    as to whether recourse to provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended
    in Bihar Act 9 of 1990 was permissible in these cases or that it is only the
G   Trade Act that applied as claimed for private parties, a reference to some of
    the provisions in both of the two enactm~nts would become necessary. The
    Indian Forest Act, 1927 is a central enactment, to consolidate the law relating
    to forests, the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable on timber and
    other forest produce. Section 2(3) defines forest offence to mean an offence
H   punishable under the Act or under any Rule made thereunder. The inclusive

                                                                                       (
                 STATE OF BIHAR "v. KEDAR SAO [RAJU, J.]                     983
definition of 'forest produce' in Section 2(4) encompass within its fold             A
'catechu' as well as the trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts
or produce not mentioned in the earlier part. Section 41 provides for the State
Governments making their own rules to regulate the transit of all timber and
other forest produce. Section 42 provides for penalty for breach of rules
made under Section 4 I. Section 52 provided for seizure of property liable to
confiscation and while the subsequently following provisions deal with further       B
course of action to be followed, Section 55 enables the Court to even confiscate
the forest produce as well as the vehicle etc. used in the commission of the
forest offence, in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence.

       Finding that not only the commission of forest offences are on the            C
increase but rampant involving large scale pilferage and depletion of forest
wealth not only causing serious onslaught on the nature and environment
causing ecological imbalance and irrepaiable loss and damage to public
property - the State Government has chosen to introduce certain drastic
legislative measures to arrest, control and strongly put down their recurrence
as well, by enacting the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act No. 9 of 1990,          D
which came into force on I0.9.1990 after obtaining the required assent of the
President of India, for the same. Section 52, which was inserted by Section
5 of the Amendment Act, reads as follows:-

        "52. Seizure and its Procedure for the property liable for confiscation.
        - (l) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been         E
        committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together
        with all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article
        used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest
        Officer or Police Officer.

        (2) Every officer seizing any property under this Section shall place        F
        on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized
        and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized
        before an officer not below the rank of the Divisional Forest Officer
        authorized by the State Government in this behalf by notification
        (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer) or where it is, having   G
        regard to quantity of bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable
        to produce the property seized before the authorized officer, or where
        it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender
        immediately, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having
        jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has
        been made:                                                                   H
    984                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A             Provided that when the forest produce with respect to which such
          offence is believed to have been committed is the property of
          Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the
          Officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to
          his immediate superior.

B         (3) Subject to Sl!b-section (5), where the authorized ,officer upon
          production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report
          about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has
          been committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing and for
          reasons to be recorded confiscate forest produce so seized together
          with all tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article
c         used in committing such offence. The Magistrate having jurisdiction
          to try the offence concerned may, on the basis of the report of the
          authorized confiscating officer, cancel the registration of a vehicle
          used in committing the offence, the licence of the vehicle driver and
          the licence of the arms. A copy of order on confiscation shall be
D         forwarded without undue delay to the Conservators of Forests of the
          forest-circle in which the Forest produce as the case may be, has been
          seized.

          (4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-
          section (3) unless the authorized officer-
E
          (a) sends an intimation about initiation of proceedings for confiscation
          of property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on·
          account of which the seizure has been made;

          (b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property
          is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorized
F
          officer to have some interest in such property;

          (c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of
          making a representation 'Within such reasonable time as may be
          specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation, and
G         (d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons
          to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing on date
          to be fixed for such purposes.

          (5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, arms,
          boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (other than the
H
               STATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO (RAJU, J.]                     985

       forest produce seized shall be made if any person referred to in clause    A
       (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorized officer
       that any such tools, arms, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were
       used without his knowledge or convenience or as the case may be,
       without tbe knowledge or convenience of his servant or agent and
       that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against       B
       use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence."

      Section 6 of the Amendment Act inserted Section 52A, which provided
for an appeal against the order of confiscation, while Section 52-B provided
for revision by the person aggrieved. Section 52-C also inserted by Section
6 of the Bihar Amendment Act reads as hereunder:-
                                                                                  c
        "52-C Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts etc. in certain circumstances.-
       (1) On receipt of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 about
       initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property by the magistrate
       having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure
       of property which is subject matter of confiscation, has been made,        D
       no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than the authorized officer,
       Appellate Authority and Revision Authority referred to in sections
       52, 52A and 528) shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard
       to' possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in
       regard to which proceedings for confiscation are initiated in this Act,
       or any other law for the time being in force.                              E
       Explanation.-Where under any law for the time being in force, two
       or more courts have jurisdiction to try forest offence, then on receipt
       of intimation under sub-section (4) of section 52 by one of the Courts
       of Magistrates having such jurisdiction shall be construed to be receipt
       of intimation under that provision by all the Courts and the bar to        F
       exercise jurisdiction shall operate on all such Courts.

       (2) Nothing in sub-section (l) shall affect the power saved under
       section 61.

      Section 52-D, inserted by Section 6 of the Amendment Act, empowers          G
the Officers enumerated therein to enter, inspect, search and seize in the
following terms:-

        "52-D. Power of entry, inspection, search and seizure.-
        Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
        being in force any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range           H
    986                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           Officer of Forests or any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-
            Inspector, may, ifhe has reasonable grounds to believe that any forest
            offence has been committed in contravention of this Act enter upon,
            inspect and search any place, premises, appurtenances thereto, land,
            vehicle or boat and seize any illegal forest produce and all tools,
            arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in
B           committing such offence".

           So far as the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984.
    (Bihar Act 12 of 1984) is concerned, the same was enacted to provide for
    regulating in public interest the trade and other related matter of certain
C   produce by creation of a· State Monopoly in such trade in the State of Bihar
    and made applicable to such forest produce and on such date(s) as the
    Government may by notification specify in this behalf. Forest produce has
    been defined in .section 2(4) to mean any forest product as specified in the
    Schedule and thereby called to be specified forest produce. Section 5 provides
    that on the issue of a notification under Section 1(3) & (4), no person other
D   than the Government, an Officer of Government authorized in writing in this
    behalf and· an Agent in· respect of the unit in which the specified forest
    produce is' grown or found, shall purchase or transport or import or export
    such specified produce in and from such area. What constituted a purchase
    not in contravention of the Act or what other shall be deemed to have been
E   purchased in contravention of the provisions ofthe Act has also been explained
    therein, with exceptions indicated relating thereto. Consequently, the bar or
    restrictions and regulations envisaged in respect of any area or unit, in respect
    ?f the specified forest produce, comes into play only when it is shown that
    a notification under Section 1(4) has been issued and published. Equally so
    would be the point of time when the enforcement of penal provisions provided
F   under this· Act would arise. This Act also contains provisions enabling the
    Government to fix prices for purchase, opening of depots and display of
    pricelist, registration of manufacturers, traders and industrialists, disposal of
    forest produce, retail sale of specified produce.etc. Section 14 provides that
    every Forest Officer and Police Officer shall prevent and may interfere for
    the purposes of preventing commission of any offence under this Act. Section
G    15, on which reliance is sought to be placed for the private parties reads as
    follows:-

            "15. Power to entry, search, seizure, etc. - (I) Any Forest Officer not
            below the rank of a Range Officer of Forest or Police Officer not
            below the rank ofa Sub-Inspector, or any other person authorized by
H
         STATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO [RAJU, J.]                       987

 the Government in this behalf may with a view to securing compliance         A
 with the provision of this Act or the rule made thereunder, or to
 satisfying himself that the said provisions have been complied with

      (i) stop and search any person, boat, vehicle or receptacle used
      or intended to be used for the transport of specified forest produce;

      (ii) enter and search any place;                                        B
      (iii) seize the specified forest produce in respect of which he
      suspects that any provision of this Act or the rules made
      thereunder has been, is being or is about to be contravened along
      with the receptacles containing such produce and all tools, ropes,      C
      chains, boats or/and vehicles used in committing any such offence.

 (2) The provisions of sections I 02 and I 03 of Code of Criminal
 Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall so
 far as may be, apply to searches and seizure under this section.

 (3) Every Officer seizing specified forest produce and other property        D
 under clause (iii) of sub-section (l) above shall place on such produce,
 if physically possible, a property mark indicating that the same has
 been seized and shall, except when the offender agrees in writing
 forthwith to get the offence compounded in the manner prescribed,
 make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate.
                                                                              E
 (4) Any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Officer of
 Forest, who or whose subordinate has seized any property other than
 the specified forest produce under clause (iii) of sub-section (l) may
 release the same on the execution by the owner thereof of a bond for
 the production of the property so released, if and when so required          F
 before the Magistrate."

Sections 20 and 21 of this Act read as hereunder:-

 "20. Penalty.-lf any person contravenes any of the provisions of
 this Act or rules made thereunder-
                                                                              G
 (I) he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one
 year or fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or both :

 Provided that penalties which are double of those mentioned above
 may be inflicted in case where the offence is committed after
 preparation for resistance to lawful authority or where the offender         H
    988                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          has been previously convicted of a like offence;

           (2) the specified forest produce in respect of which such contravention
           has been made or such part thereof as the Court may deem fit, and
           any boat, tools, vehicle, animal, vessel, or other conveyance or any
           other articles used in committing such offence shall be forfeited to
B          Government and shall vest in Government free from all encumbrances:

           Provided that if the Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to
           direct confiscation in respect of whole, or as the case may be, any
           part of the specified forest produce or other property, it may, for the
           reasons to be recorded refrain from doing so.
c          (3) such forfeiture may be in addition to any other punishment
           prescribed for such offence.

           21. Disposal of produce and other seized property on conclusion of
           trial. - On the conclusion of the trial of the offence any specified
D          forest produce in respect of which such offence has been committed,
           if it is the property of Government or has been confiscated and other
           forfeited property shall be taken charge of by a Forest Officer, and
           in any other case, may be disposed of in such manner as the Court
           may direct."

E         Section 28 provides that when in any proceeding taken under this Act,
    a question arises as to whether any specified forest produce is the property
    of the Government such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the
    Government until the contrary is proved.

          Section 32, on which strong reliance has been placed and which seems
F   to have weighed with the High Court, in countenancing the claim of the
    private parties, reads as follows:-

           "32. limitation of applicability of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and any
           other law or order. - ( l) Nothing contained in the Indian Forest Act,
           1927 (XVI of i 927) shall apply to specified forest produce in respect
G          of matters for which provisions are contained in this Act.

           (2) Nothing contained in any other thing having force of law in any
           region of the State shall apply to the specified forests produce in
           respect of matters for which provisions have been made in this Act."

H         The High Court seems to have very much relied upon Section 32 of the
                STATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO {RAJU, J.]                      989
Trade Act to arrive at the conclusion that the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which        A
in its opinion was a general provision has no· application with regard to trade
and other related matters concerning forest produce notified to be specified
forest produce under the Trade Act and that for dealing with any contravention
in respect of any transaction in specified forest produce one has to refer to
only the Trade Act and if any violation is actually found then the offence will     B
be under the Trade Act and not under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The High
Court on that premise appears to have held that if there is any provision for
confiscation of vehicle in the Trade Act, that would only apply for the reason
that any violation in respect of transaction of specified forest produce can
amount to offence only under the Trade Act and in respect of specified forest
produce there cannot be a forest offence within the meaning of the Indian           C
Forest Act, 1927 so as to confer jurisdiction on an Officer authorized under
the said Act to confiscate either specified forest produce or the vehicle
connected therewith. It may be pointed out at this stage that the High Court
in the course of its judgment noticed specifically that on the admitted position
of fact proceedings in question have been initiated under the relevant provisions
of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.                                                     D
      The High Court appears to have not only misdirected itself as to the
nature of offence but also misconstrued the relevant provisions of the Trade
Act and ignored as well certain vitally important provisions contained in the
Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1990. A proper comparison, scrutiny and                    E
consideration of the relevant provisions of the respective enactments Central
Act and the state amendment by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 on the one side and the
Trade Act on the other would go to show that the object underlying them are
not only distinct and separate but the essence, import, content and character
as well as nature of offence and the essential ingredients to constitute such
offences under the respective enactments are wholly different and the offences      F
under these two laws not only can co-exist but one cannot also be held to be
destructive of the other. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker
[1971] I SCC 442, while dealing with the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 and Fruit Products Order 1955 and the case of a prosecution under
the former enactment of a licencee selling an adulterated goods while dealing       G
with such goods under a licence granted under order issued under the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955, this Court held that despite the patent differences in
their main objects of these laws merely because it may in certain respects or
aspects cover the same field also one can be said to be inconsistent or repugnant
with the other.
                                                                                    H
    990                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         As to how a non-obstante clause has to be construed and considered in
    cases of alleged inconsistency or repugnancy between the two legislations, a
    Constitution Bench of this Court in M Karunanidhi v. Union of India &
    Anr., [1979] 3 SCC 431 observed as follows:-

           "35. On a careful consideration, therefore, of the authorities referred
B          to above, the following propositions emerge :

           l.   That in order to decide the question of repugnancy it must be
                shown that the two enactments contain inconsistent and
                irreconcilable provisions, so that they cannot stand together or
                operate in the same field.
c          2.   That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency
                appears on the face of the two statutes.
           3.   That where the two statutes occupy a particular field, but there
                is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same
                field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy
D               results.
           4.   That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the
                same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences, no
                question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to
                operate in the same field."
E
          Reference has also been made therein to a passage from Craies in his
    Statute Law 6th Edition, Page 369, which reads as hereunder:-

           "Many earlier statutes contain clauses similar in effect to the general
           rule, but without the confusing words as to contrary intention. These
F          statutes, of some of which a list is given below, seem not to be
           affected by the above rule, save so far as it enables the revisers of the
           statute book to excise the particular clauses. In accordance with this
           rule, penalties imposed by statute for offence already punishable under
           a prior statute are regarded as cumulative or alternative and not as
           replacing the penalty to which the offender was previously liable."
G
          The provisions contained in Section 32 of the. Trade Act are merely
    exclusionary in nature rendering the provisions contained in the Indian Forest
    Act, 1927 inapplicable to only such of the specified forest produce as defined
    under the Trade Act, and that too only in respect of matters for which the
H   provisions are contained in the Trade Act. Likewise the application of any
                STATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO [RAJU. J.]                      991
other thing having force of law in any region of the State is excluded in           A
respect of such produce and such matters as are provided for in the Trade
Act. Though the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is a central enactment being a
legislation pertaining to an entry in the concurrent list, the State of Bihar has
chosen to amend the said law in its application to the State of Bihar by the
Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1990, by introducing its own sentence by way of            B
punishment and scheme of provisions providing for powers of entry,
inspection, searclt and seizure as well as for confiscation of produce or other
properties seized and the procedure therefor in its entirety. As noticed supra,
the Bihar State Legislature has chosen to enact by the Amendment Act, 1990
more comprehensive and stringent provisions by providing for enhanced and
deterrent punishments to deal with the forest offences found to be rampant          C
and on steep rise within the State providing its own class of officers to deal
with such situations, the manner and procedure to be adopted in dealing with
such offences and the nature, content and width of powers, they should be
armed with to make it onerous and impossible for violators by dealing them
with an iron hand by visiting upon such offenders with a drastic and severe
punishment for anyone guilty of such forest offences. The Trade Act, apart          D
from being a legislation of the year 1984 and strictly confined to the nature,
class and category of offences pertaining to violation of the provisions in the
said Act more in the nature of Regulation of Trade in the context of monopoly
created in favour of the State and that too with reference to particular notified
and enumerated forest produce defined for the purpose of the said Act to be         E
'specified forest produce', cannot be said to be destructive of the powers
conferred upon the Authorised officer, the Appellate and Revisional
Authorities. Section 32 of the Trade Act, thus, has no effect of effacing the
Central Act as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1990 completely so as to
disarm the concerned Authorities totally from having recourse to those
provisions even in respect of offences which pertain, arise and relating to the     F
provisions contained therein. The assumption on the part of the High Court
that once by virtue of a notification under Section 1(3) and (4) of the Trade
Act, a produce become specified forest produce, any and every offence in
respect of such produce, could be dealt with only U)lder the Trade Act only
renders meaningless the specific words, "in respect of matters for which            G
provisions have been made in this Act". Section 32 cannot be viewed merely
from the angle of offences and punishments and procedure in respect of
offences. The Regulatory measures in the Central Act and the rules ·made
thereunder on the one hand and those under the Trade Act and the rules made
thereunder on the other differ and consequently, the main object of Section
32 of the Trade Act seems to be to do away with the need to comply with             H
    992                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A and/or adhere to the rigor of the restrictions in the Central Act, in addition
    to satisfying the requirements of the stipulations contained in the Trade Act .
    and the rules made thereunder. There is nothing as a matter of any general
    principle for denying the very same legislature - the legislature of the Bihar
    State, the power to enact different provisions in either separate Acts or in one
    and the same Act conferring distinct and separate powers upon more than
B   one authority to deal with a particular situation arising, as it may deem fit,
    or as the exigencies of the situation may warrant. An· the more so, in our
    view, in this case, having regard to Section 53-C inserted by the Bihar
    Amendment Act 9 of 1990 in the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which in
    unmistakable language of a mandatory nature, ordaining that on receipt of
C   intimation under sub-section (4) of Section 52 about initiation of proceedings
    for confiscation of property, by the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
    offence on account of which the seizure of'property, which is subject matter
    of confiscation, has been made, no Court, Tribunal or Authority (other than
    the Authorized Officer, Appellate Authority and Revision Authority referred
    to in Sections 52, 52A and 528) shall have jurisdiction under the said Act or
D   any other law for the time being in force to make orders with regard to
    possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to
    which proceedings for confiscation are initiated. That apart, it must also be
    kept in consideration unlike the position under the Central Act in view of
    Section 17 o.f the Trade Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence
E   punishable under the said Act except on report in writing from the authority
    specified therein. Further, being a latter law, which has also obtained the
    assent of the President of India on 5.3.1990, the same will apply
    notwithstanding the Trade Act of the year 1984 and notwithstanding the fact
    that the said law had also obtained the assent of the President. The assent of
    the President to the 1984 Trade Act may help for its survival notwithstanding
F   the Central Enactment I Indian Forest Act, 1927 in relation to matters provided
    for under the Trade Act by virtue of Section 32 contained therein, but in view
    of the subsequent State enactment the Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1990,
    which had also obtained the assent of the President, the special procedure
    introduced under the Bihar Amendment Act l 990 empowering the designated
G   authorities with more comprehensive and stringent powers to order for the
    confiscation of the property to the exclusion of the Court, Tribunal or any
    Authority cannot be curtailed, whittled down or circumscribed, in any manner,
    by any of the provisions contained in the Trade Act of the year l 984. Section
    52-C, which seems to have been completely overlooked by the High Court,
    clinches the issue and dissuade any such construction. There is also nothing
H   wrong in more than one enactments conferring the same powers to be exercised
                STATE OF BIHAR v. KEDAR SAO [RAJU, J.]                    993

in the same or different circumstances upon two different and distinct class A
of a~thorities and merely because they may have some overlapping features
alone, conflict or inconsistency .cannot be attributed to the legislature deny
thereby such powers to the category of officers upon whom the legislature
has chosen to specifically confer powers with the object of ensuring a deterrent
exercise of the same keeping in view the growing attempts to deplete forest B
wealth. Any such construction which tends to defeat the very purpose of
conferring such powers upon the authorities of the Department and frustrates
completely the object of the legislative amendment itself, is to be meticulously
avoided by courts, particularly in the context of overriding effect engrafted
in Section 52-C, stipulating that on receipt of a communication by the
Magistrate concerned from the specified officer of the Forest Department of C
the intention of the specified authority to invoke powers under Section 52 to
confiscate or forfeit the property, which is subject matter of the offence, no
Court, Tribunal or authority other than the Authorized Offi1:er, Appellate
Authority and Revision Authority shall havejurisdiction over the said matter.
Consequently, we are unable to agree with the decision of the High Court or
approve of the reasoning given in the judgment in support of its conclusion. D
The~ n:µ>m.rl h Smt. Chandrawati Devi, (supra) said to have been
rendered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the context of
similar claims vis-a-vis Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973
and the Indian Forest Act, 1927 cannot also be considered to lay down the
correct position of law, in the light of what has been held by us in this E
judgment.

     For all the reasons stated above, Criminal Appeal Nos. 231 and 232 of
1996 shall stand allowed and the other two Civil Appeals shall stand dismissed.
No costs.
                                                                                  F
      The concerned and competent authorities shall be at liberty to pursue
further course of action as a consequence of our decision- and to this extent,
the interim orders already passed shall no longer stand in their way.

S.K.S.                                           Appeals allowed/dismissed.