Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010

sought by the petitioner is in

the earlier order passed in

..wV.p.”N’e.10347/2010 dated 31.3.2010. Hence,

” respondents are directed to release 33,000/~

it metric tons iron ore seized by respondent No.2

and kept in the custody of respondent No.3 as

per seizure report Annexure-N subject to the

37

petitioner executing indemnity Bond after

satisfying / verifying of documents.”

(U) 6.5.2019 — Letter from Port Conservator

officer, Belekeri indicating stock of Iron ore

on the date of the seizure _.on.._20.3I}2’Oi”di’.’;v.it

indicating partywise stock statementrFiirnishe’d:–”

by following Stevedores;

(a) M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd.,41m’4,3V57.:63 ‘2

(b) Sri Maiiikarjun S’i1A.l4p’f,/ing g,As9.5;u?,§;a2o MT 22 V

{(2) Salgaoncar Mining Indiistrv

{d) Rajarrgaiialw Silks ifiospéie -.Q’;2°4,.0V2O.80o MT

Tot_a_l ” *i–“8}i3_i5,9gi:i1.083 MT

(v)A ‘May 2610″ .Tih’eci’24following Writ Petitions

_;j haive been.__fi’l’ed seeking release of seized Iron

o_i.§a«ntity;

V”(§:’)}…W:Pr~..i\l.o.3.5742/2010 PJS Overseas Ltd.,
16,003 I522?

(2) w[‘r>.r~io.15743/2010 Soddannavar Brother

“$3000 MT

4’;(Mining lease holder whose lease period
‘ expired on 28.2.2010, Deemed renewal not

given by i’~”orest Department,
W.P.No.14762/2010 pending before Green
Bench.

38

(3) W.P.No.157-44/2010 Sri Mahai Ltd.,
21,000 MT

(4) W.P.N0.1S745-746/2010

Swastick Steels Ltd…~~-.0′ » 0′

30,840 MT

(5) W.P.i\lo.1S756/2010 Sri La_>_<m.i__Venl;'ateshdjv.0"0

48,000 MT %

V 1,4:6,._1séi–0_zMT -. ~. "

(w) 2.6.2010 — Local Ne0wsoa;3ers”car_ry’ing 0

the information t’t;a:t’:V«–!argi_e gtian.tit.3r”*of seized H

iron ore is missing allegedl”§V__e>§po-‘rtehd–0t_hro~ugh
B.elel<ere_'/4 )1 Mar'::;:aiore"

(x_)….g2.’6._2oi.Q_ __ “At Vireportgwais filed to the
j’t_;tis;::–i:tVie’iiai~v..ji~i.i=C,.,’_éeei;.in.g directions to the

local. police ‘to reg:«;te{ti ie case.

2.6r2″G’1«0……:»Attention of Hori’bie Chief

‘tiivgi.!a’ncév Commissioner, New Delhi was drawn

reqti’est’i’h.g’V to initiate immediate action to

p”re.ser”it loss to the State / National Exchequer.

V (2) 3.6.2010 — A status report was submitted

to the jurisdictional JMFC stating that huge

quantity of seized iron ore is missing.

39

(aa) 7.6.2010 — Written Complaint was filed

to the S.H.O Ankota for the offences
Dtznishabie under Sections 405, 406 and
of IPC against the Port Conserv_at.or__— M_a’hes*t{‘_’:V.
Bilava and 8 Exporters who have fijeti ‘
writ petitions claiming o\»vVne.rushiph’oveI” ;ertavi’nV’:
quantity of seized iron ovt4e’~«.xar:dV Bhhhiicetncved

stevedores.

(ab) s.a_.2_o;’1.o_ — :”flFiF{::vvas

1.54 to the

t 5 %

(:a=’:)’ H Fort Conservator
_Betet<ere fileo~v__an,indebendent complaint to the

go§';ce_ Inshgiiectof,» Ankola against M/s Adani

E.nterpfi'sve_s and ors. for the atteged offences.

Z 8. The tfontentions of the Learned counset for the

' "".5i.*'f.__VV;j»etitionezis'And the learned Govt. advocate for the state Has

_%c:Ce.E.ved my serious consideration.

The fottowing questions need to be answered:

}%<Q2'1~'

(1)

(II)

(III)

40

Whether the forest officer named under
Section 62–A of the Forest Act could_._ be
equated to a poiice officer for the purposge”»of

investigation of offences punishable-f”u-.nfdeifl_

the provisions of the Forest Act?

Whether the forest officer _riiarjr’ied’–.jun4der’~« _
Section 62–A could appilvgfor.’ per”rhlssion_’ito’t-._V if
the magistrate under 1’Sect_iAo’ri; ii551{2)._,_ i
to investigate non–cog’niza._bl’e offe_ncesgun_”dert’~i_:
the provisions ofthe Act;.or’–wheth-er. he coiuldi

only be a comp|ain_a’nt to the police o._ffi’cer;’ or
whether the poiiceofficer alo’n.e’is”competent
to apply to thel.—~m’agIs–trate “for grant of
|I)el’r’I’iiSS|Oi”I__?”‘a, _

In the instant w-h.e’t’hfeir__’permission of
the_:m.agist’rate -was -.otb_taine.:d Vbefo re carrying
out ‘pi-nves–tigation”V _i’n–7*~ FT.C.17/O9«1O and

A

t’r’ie.”‘sei2’u’r’e”effected by the police
._ — offi”:l:er_» is ‘~vitia_ted for not obtaining prior
. perrn’iss.io’n_.to.d4iii.vestigate, as required under

‘ Sectl-on”.15.5’€?J} Cr.P.C.?

__1{}. __§The. cont’e..ri_ti’o’n of designated senior advocate, Sri

aTnd._Vlearned counsei, Sri Thiruvengadam is that

alnv”foVrlest7’of_f’ic’er” not below the rank of a Range Forest

A _Office”r na_’niedi’under Section 62–A of the Act is not a police
and cannot be deemed to be so for the purpose of
‘_’_c~_in’v.esti’gatihg a non–coghi2:able offence and he will not be

A –i’.4:”c’oi-hpetent to even apply to the magistrate under Section

4E
155(2), Cr.P.C. for grant of permission. Referring to the

investigation in FTC.17/09-10 and FCR.189/O9, they

contend FIR reveals it is registered for investigati’~o.sn’«._if_o~fVV

Offences punishable under Sections 2 (7)(b)(iv)_,ji?:2;A:’érg—-

the Forest Act, 1963, and theref_ore,..__theHc’orn’_plai’ea’nt~..cu

Assistant Conservator of Forest was c0.m’peteVrif..’/j;E)?.11

register the FIR itself or to -‘for
grant of permission under It is
urged he could at the most,ifia~pp-fly tlhefijurisdictional police
who in turn would and apply to
the view expressed
by this i’C.OU–¥’t SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA

(Supra) is r’e!4_iued_ to _h’igfi»ii:ght4Vthe bar imposed by Section

…s.155(2.}.§gCr.~P.C. Vonsthe ‘police officer to investigate a non»-

A”~.cog}ji«i7at3l.e ‘ca-sVe”~~a_nd the decision in the case of S.MURARI

eifffavfiii./r’hHe’Ri_ STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANGE

-‘Poet.-‘.”‘sT. EvJiV!.=i*=2ii’V(:ER, KUDREMUKH (ILR 2004 KAR 1706)

rieliread to support the first proposition wherein the learned

Qsingile Eudge of this court held that ‘a Range Forest Officer is

52 police officer within the meaning of Section 2( 16) of

42

the Forest Act’ and thus a forest officer named under

Section 62–A of the Forest Act cannot be equatedttoyr

deemed to be a poiice officer for the purpose

155(2), Cr.P.C. The proposition iaiyd dow_n~~~E»n.:ft)he.::said»x’

decisions is extracted hereunder:

SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA .v”.i,_StATs””’tis;i§_Vt ”
KARNAAKA(1979(2)KLJt.44y9) ‘ ”

’12. Section 15 (oi: theii””C’oVtd’e”of Criminai:
Procedure, 1973, re’a.dT3_th.us:;_’.V ” ‘

“1SE3. Information Vast-v.to’i ri-oArii:cognfzabfe”
cases’ « .._and Lin vestfgationj .. of’ such
Cas–es:;5′ _. _ 3 _t ”

(1) When_'<-.)infutmati_on Vis "7gi'v_er1_ to an

oi'f.ice.r in ch'a'rg.e'i*o"f' a "poiiceg station of

**** "the"com1iniissi'oh-.with'in–..the limits of

s_uc'hf_..sta'tior1..of a nomcognizable

-, “offence,fh.eishai–!._enter’or cause to be

* V entered ” .jth_e”~~._)sub~stance of the

“‘in_forma’ti_or.i.iri )a”}i:>ooi< to be kept by

su'ch_' officer"; in""such form as the

State Government may prescribe in

* this beha'if;*i'and refer the informant
, tothe magistrate.

“~'(_2) .”‘No i.ooi’i’ce officer shall investigate a
‘M “n’on’~cognizable case without the
‘ .or’der of a magistrate having power
2 to try such case or commit the case
” for triai.”

(Sub ciauses (3) and (4) are omitted as
unnecessary) Therefore, when an information
is given to an officer of the poiice station with
regard to the commission of a non–cognizabie
offence, it is his duty to enter the substance of

‘N

‘– 5

\.x

.’1:.i.«…

by the i’earned counsel, but in the light of the decision of the

,
figufix

44

contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.

panchanama, he has a’is.o”‘V-given Vr’.’u,r_r’i,be’r as
Crime l\io.409/79. All th*ese,have’ happened
before the requisite sanctioriis “obtained”‘by”the
police from the ju«risd_ic’t_ior;:_ai ma*gi’strate.’

S.MURAR! &_.~- Amen; –. _ VST’.t\”TE OF
KARNATAKA. B’! RZANG-E “:=o.REs:y*r OFFICER,
KUDR_E:–_¥,,~iIU,i_r_(l-._E_ (.1LR’2_oo__4 i(AR:’i706)

Karnata.k:aV1’V.;_,”Fol:est?’:fTA-=ct:%Section 62–A–Range
Forest” »C;’ffice1’if” ‘shgailfbe deemed to be a police
o.fficei’ f.o’r»th,e’purpo’s.e’of Sec.156, Cr.P.C.–but
for the ptirpose ‘of”S-ection 155, Range Forest
Officerii is “not. =a.”;~police officer within the

,.meanirg_Vl eff-Section 62–A of the Karnataka
Forest Act! _ _

S_ee.rn.i:ng,|y the decision of the learned single Judge in

athgeh–case”o’f«S;*ll?i’tiRARI is in support of the contentions urged

ifVfl’s.,[}ivi..sAion”Bench of this court in V.S.LAD 8: SONS, BELLARY
at “;’i.:r.’l’§TATE OF KARNATAKA (2oo9(3) KCCR 2067), a

“firm decision has to be taken.

The fact that the Sub~=.,_
Inspector of Police did proceed to the spot .Qn»._*._V
27.4.1979 itself with the intention of co||ect’i–n’g—f_
necessary information with regard
nature of the accident, etc. and drawing_’up~o.f°’ ”

a panchanama thereafter clearly indi’ca–t.e’~..that
the police started investigation “on the basi’3._of*–T:
the report sent to him by: the,,Su’b..’Offi-cer,:’~-,t,_,_
North Fire Station, Bangalore, It is signif’icant’ ‘
to note that after.’ d__rawing_ ” up :’o’fl_=t_he

Mm

47

13. Sub–section (2) of Section 62–A postulates t__hat for

the purpose of Section 156, Cr.P.C., an area whic’h._a-«4..p’o.lvice

officer is empowered under subsection (1) shail
to be a police station and such office.r,_shalE’be”=-lqe’*
the officer in charge of the said poliAce1’_stai’tioir;., “Tiieré:ica.nii.Qt

be two opinions that sub~se_cti.on (2) refers area.’

which, for the purpose of se<;nafrA'.r.:p5s5kL of .the.Cod,e, shall be
deemed to be a police"-sitationff[Iti"'dd_esl–n_ot restrict power
conferred by suta'~s_ecti0'n V

14. The§!~l’5tj’h§_..l{aVr_na–tailk;_a has issued a notification

dated . 7.i20G?3§_Vto _fo’l«!.o»~Jing effect:
V t}0″i/’ii31§Ni\.»i_f;’:>i:t.–0I«* KARNATAKA
N0.FE-E LIU4 F”DP’2.F[“) 1 Ketriiataka Government Seci’etari21t

M.S.Bui1ding
.Bzmgz1E01’e._ dated 0 I /07/2() E 0

NOTIFICATION
ii =_3The’Cio–\rerh1iieni’ of K21l’E1£1i’dkfl hereby notifies the areas under the
“=._i.E1I’]’i_[-‘JI”‘ii’l]v j~i1:’isdic1i<_):1 of the Range Forest Officers of Kzirm-itakzi
F01'est';_Depu1'tinent iiicluding wildiife to he the specified areas under

" I ;.Sectiion 62~A of the K21I'I]21Itll\'£1 F()rest Act i963 for the purpose of

V' o.é"§"ez2ces under this Act to exercise powers conferred on an ofl'ic<:r in~
cliarge. of an poiice staition by the provision of the Code of Criminal
Procedare 1973.

48

This order is deemed to have come into effect from the date of
issue of amendment to this Section in the Act 20 of 20()()
o4/in/zooo. T’ T

By Order and in the name of 2″

Governor of Kmnaltelka

lGC?-P/’M… ‘ c
Under Secretary toIGovc1’nm’3.1]t” _
Forest Ecoiogv & Envitoiirnent Dep’;Lr’ftme’:lt ‘

15. In the notification, specified in
respect of which the poliice the of Range
Forest Officer, may investigatel..Vo’ffencié§.I/Llvvnider the Act. The
notification not restriction or

modificalt*ion:”‘l§n “rn,attei’r””‘re!ating to investigation of
offences un_derV:tliej

16. There_fore,’th4es.con:ciusion of the Division Bench of this

coo.-i:;,’VVFIFQI’-eg,,i_s_tered even on the basis of Lokayukta
‘AF,E!V’£’J:>.F? “i,3,lf~t:h.Ae”‘forest officer was valid and FIR was not liable
iiitoffee aiso based on the interpretation as
above, it has to be held that by virtue of Section
of the Forest Act, an officer not beiow the rank of
Forest Officer is deemed to be a police officer for the

hfviourpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore,

49
under Section 155(2) or 156, Cr.P.C., he is deemed to be a
police officer. The arguments to the contrary are, vtfiiefefore,

discounted.

17. Now, we shall come to the questiorilas.tohviinéhetiweryi

investigation in the instant case

Deputy Conservator of Forest _without:”the pe,rrnis’sion’oF*the»,

magistrate, vitiates the proce’edi’ngs. In: rlegalrd, it is

material to note that £131?/o9′–s«ijo was registered
on 15.3.2010 on which dayllthe’ics’VrestTotfi<fe_i- visited the port

and noticed s'ta&:l§i'i-ig iamh o<re';"C."–Susfpecting it to be an

attempt it vsiithvout the requisite permits,

he registered tl:eV.caf;s»ei."-~._,°-.

18…«§gaSri Rav–ie_B.N.aik and Sri Thiruvengadam, with

.\;;e’shenie’nce,:l”asserted that after registering the FIR on

“1*5x.”.3–.l201’t’V,”é.’,’_{:..title forest officer had seized the ore and

S regihstered acase under Sections 2(7)(b)(iv) 62, 80 of the

‘:g,F’oi’est Act and for violation of Rules 143 and 162 of the

— Forest Rules. Since it was done without the permission of

“the magistrate as required under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C.,

50
the entire proceedings are vitiated. If what is urged is
factually so, then the ground is acceptable. Howev.er–,,yon a

perusal of the records made available, it is notAi.ce’d.V,t:h’atthe

complainant/forest officer had applied to thésjjurisdvictioiaulal’V’

magistrate at Ankola, in FCR;i1l7/09e_1’D for

permission to investigate the case for the offences i~nd’:.’cate’d-.,c

above, as required under Sectiron 1″5’5.(_2′},, The

magistrate passed t.heV_ oryder*onif-1,._8.3.20lI0′,”V granting
permission to investigate the caste; nce to the said
order, seizure_.,has b.eeri:A_ effected,lonj_’~2,0′,_3Vf.’2010. The seizure
report at A:n’lhé,xvu}eéi:: “ta €rl.P.764S/10 indicates
that seizure’ waVs’vrep’orted:_:to the magistrate on 20.3.2010.

Seizure, un_dloubVt’e_d’ly,_” after obtaining permission to

inveshgate theV'”Cawse_____an.d hence, the requirement of Section

been met by the forest officer.

19.0 On it is seen investigation has commenced oniy

0′-.-«.___”after permission was granted by the magistrate and hence,

yV”rlegi_st:’rfi.ation of FCR.17/09-10 is not in contravention of the

-~–.,:_prcivIsions of the Cr.P.C. and hence, not vitiated.

:_ /
f,_§\/\>.},
{iv
‘V’

5.1.

20. Regarding seizure, petitioners contend that it is illegal
as the ore stacked was covered with forest permit inrespect

of a particular quantity; Customs ciearance_”‘-was”VV..also

obtained. These are questions of fact to

Petitioners have referred to the’Worders’«, pas.sed_ :i_n’e7’th.eir»

favou r in W. P. 1 0347/1 0 dated 3 O ” su’bseci’u.<é\n't.Vg

orders in the connected writ~~..?:é.t,itionsutgj'~s.h'oviiFthey were

permitted to iift the seized iron s'ubjectito"'e)tecuting an
indemnity bond. I have JperLiseid:"theii"in'teri_m orders passed
by this courtiin-fire wr_it to above. They

are not relied by the petitioners

dated 731.s;3;2o1iioji:~:-ifvvi;P..:gino34n7/10 is of relevance and to
understandits .efxlV"e.c't;i_it' isfiextracted hereunder:

'Though theisvcourt on an earlier instance had
'issued an interim order staying the order

–» _ whi.ch_i’s similar to the one which is produced
Va_Vs»..y_A’nin.e><_jure-3 to this petition, the period
pres_crib;e'd in the said notice has
expired' …….. ..

In the present case, the impugned
“Annexure–M dated 29.3.2010 the document
itself indicates that the exporters are
permitted to ioad iron ore other than what
‘ has been seized by the forest authorities.
Hence, an interim order in the instant case is
issued directing the respondents to permit
the petitioner to export iron ore regarding

52

which clearance has been obtained from the
forest authorities and in respect of which
customs duty has bee collected by
authorities. It is made clear that in res.pe.ct.__’_t’
of iron ore which may be stocked in the”yard”~t.””* ”
and in respect of the same, if there _i’s_nof 4
endorsement of forest __..au_thor.ities” V
required under Rule 162 of the ;K’a_rnata_ka,.__t
Forest Rules, such stock of ‘i.ror:fo~rve shali not ~
be permitted under, _this ‘-interim _o?rder.’ ‘
Hence, export may._V’~b.e permitted “~.__o”n~
verification of documenfsyyand subjec’trto the
petitioner filing i_ndemnyity_A’bon’d,. The –expo{rt
permitted shall ‘remain’ suVbje._cti’to. the result

of the petition “and. furthverV(jr.de’rs to be
Dassed.’ – i i

Based on e>'<_tr'a'cted.."afbvoyeywsimilar orders have
been p,a.$s,eAd*..yiVn :su_bseduie'nt" w.rit.5petitions, but it is clear
from the n-.atu.re"V'o'i'–the_'iriter'i~–m order granted that petitioners

were permitted' to _load' ore other than what was seized

byv..ti§j.e'_i1'orVestV"'a.uth_ori:'ties. The direction issued to the
to permit the petitioners to export iron ore
clearance has been obtained from forest

–V authuorities and in respect of which customs duty has been
Besides, other conditions enumerated in the

–‘ oprtderpplclarify that the iron ore seized was not permitted to

“be lifted/exported and in fact permission granted in respect

.r\
.’ I i

“~\. ‘AL .

55

– In the meantime, the Green Bench of the Karnataka

High Court ordered a joint survey in 16 ca_sesf”,:«i.n”-.the
year 2009 which was not completed. if if if it
o In January 2010, LokayLik»ta»._,rece.iyledT.-‘I,’cor.1lplé.ai’i1_tsVV’
regarding illegal mining
Government land in ‘iEie,l’iaVry, otheru
districts and unazuthorizedutran”s..p.ortation_.without valid
Dermits from ‘4l:<'a'rwVai*.,p0rts. On that
complaint,'further":ac:tio_nx':w.asV7 and a special
team. ._¢_Qri'si1§,};~u'ted"'ViVn February 2010 by
conducted raids and
seized material like hard disks,
records, _ permitsEconsisting of large number of
,.«}gsu'spected' leases purportedly issued from
Andhra Pradesh and also found forged
permits of Karnataka State.

permits seized from the possession of various
of …__mvi”ners, transporters were found to be forged and
0 “therefore, Range Forest Officer, Ankola, took further

action. In this fact situation, the Section Forester,

58
seeking direction to the local police to register a case.
Meanwhile, attention of the Central Vigilance Corri’n’:.i,ssion

was drawn seeking permission to initiate action…a’s.iti-woiuld

result in huge loss to the national exchequ,er.WQn

status report was submitted to

huge quantities of seized ironore ‘missing. ‘:7′.6.2’0li’0, Wag

written complaint was filed”V”i”9:ehfore SHO,”~!3{nl{o:la,for the

offences punishable under 040,5, V0379, I.P.C.
against the Port Conservaltolr§’vM;t,ipVeslh1l__’.8ile and eight
exporters who ‘w;e:,re petitioners petition before

this court, iseei<in.g'V.owne'resjhi.p'—of the 'seized iron ore and also

against.._th=reevlicénced.istevedores. On 8.6.2010, FIR was

registeredfigon in charge Port Conservator,

_ Belek§{erei'~Port,V"'fi.le,d_____an independent complaint before the

.,T.nspect_or,.,Arilzola against M/s Adani Enterprises for the

eiiew Thus, it is seen Crime Nos.17/09~10 and

V ., 189'/10 v«..ér1d".V'P.C.54/10 are for offences punishable under

405, 406, 379, I.P.C. against Mahesh Bile—-Port

.'Co:nsé'rvator and others which includes the petitioners in

0 scrip. f\los.7645/10, 7646/10 and three licenced stevedores.

,3,\,,'-iéi/"

K ,1′

59
Similarly, separate case was registered in P.C.54/10__a__gainst

M/s Adani Enterprises on the basis of complaint-fsub’mi”tted

by Port Conservator Belekere Port. Thus,

commission of non–cognizab|e offencesgand tithe-riefoire’,j;.SHVOu’

received the complaints and registerendi

under investigation.

27. Referring to Sve,-Cation 52s;¢4irr¢hesi.Forest ‘Act,-ioetitioners
averred that Mahesh l’§$iie__’w’asgStiaitegfiovernment officer
and the case.’ under Sections
405, 406,; nothiave been registered
as required under
Sectionv’A’1fl37,VC’r..E5′.’é;A’–ii§”‘he”‘contention has to be discounted

as the..pgrovisio,n ‘offsectioin 197 bars cognizance being taken

. bubiic servant without prior sanction/consent of

uS3tat’efGoVvreVr.hment. It does not bar investigation into an

ofAfe.ncev;.-i~t_is= only the offence cognizable by the court which

but an investigation into an offence by the

V.«’-combetent investigating officer. On this ground, FIR

…_registered for investigating the offences indicated above

it against Mahesh Bile are not liable to be quashed and more

§
E
3
i

61
not sustainable as it is a juristic person, is also unacceptable

because under the General Clauses Act, the word. Tlpeerson’

includes a juristic person also. Keeping this i_r;i'”‘rn’!.’n~d’._._i

read Section 378, I.P.C., a juristic person..wo.uldf.::al.soff_’be.,g'”V._

liable but the natural person who,I,at the tin’ae{of’–comnn’iVss,ion

of the offence had indulged in such ‘act,”‘would”‘Vbe

who has to be sentenced.

30. Sri Thiruveng”a.dar.nV, counsel for the

petitioners, has raised l,eg*’al.v.”i’ss;u.e’ with regard to

repugnancy proiris.i’ons’:~Vo’fv~the Customs Act and

the Ka,_rnatak’afVj’,Fores,t A:c’t~!_:n_this regard, he would contend
that iron’ gore is under the Union List and

therefore, ituuispniy”byr”Pa’rliamentary legislation its import or

f mining cofuld be determined. He submits, as iron

List, it is only the Union of India which

hats–to issuejthe notification regarding restraint on its export

.u””-Wags,en\}i’s.a”ged under Section 11-I of the Customs Act. He
,..”sVub.m:its, provisions of Section 62 of the Forest Act
…c.onferring power on forest officers to seize such iron ore

if considering it as ‘forest produce’ does not empower the

62
forest officer to enter upon the area coming within the
Customs Act. In other words, it is urged, as iron ore_.-was on

the precincts of the port liable for customs du’t§I;..f”i<n:"'t4he

absence of any notification by the Central 4_

under Section 11-1 of the Customsnact ¢x.po:t,li

the forest officer cannot invoke S2 of

to seize such iron ore. This' is.,:on%theV"i3asiscVAth_at"~-when':there'

is a Parliamentary |egi,.slation.i-anrl_:*St'ate lec_iisiva.tion, it is the
Parliamentary legislation_whic.hi:'rVpreilailra:.and not the State
legislation. reference to
case laws.:i' f I A

31. ‘As *«r’eg.ards:’j’the.,’I4eg:a’i’position, it is well settled that in

the case°._o”f_(§{)lllE_R¥§:_i?1iENT or ANDHRA PRADESH

AN,.!’i{l|l5VNi’€.)THEV.Rw–.t(V.’ J.i?s.eoucAT1oN socrerv (AIR 2005

apex court held that the question of

“‘r4e:p–ugriaVri’£:y{between a parliamentary legislation and state

legis.’ati-on”can arise in two ways. First, where legislations

if eniacteti” with respect to matters in their allotted sphere

Zoivferlap and Conflict. Second, where the two legislations are

“with respect to matters in the concurrent list and there is a

V’; ”

-(:1)

5/

63
conflict. In both the situations, the parliamentary
legislation will predominate, in the first, by virtueofg non-

obstante clause in Article 246(1) of the Constiti,iti_ohV,”‘jufnhbbthte

second, by reason of Section 245(1) of

Clause (2) of Article 245 deals witha «sitfuation the S

State legislation having been reservedand having

President’s assent prevails in tihat=i,state,’-thi’s.again iswsbubjectb

to the proviso that Pariia__menvi”‘carrilbagajn bring”as”Vlegislati’on
to override even such’ state»iulegislatfonsg. Keeping this

principie in mi.n«<i«,_vv.e have exarn'.i_ne_'thje case at hand.

32. in ‘the “FIR registered against the

petitionersr..,i_S for “offences punishabie under Sections

2(7_)'(;’«.*.3),UA’v),v% 62’,”8€}.._o.f«the Forest Act and Rules 143, 162 of

‘the” Eoi~.,3S;# Section 2(7)(b)iv) is the defining section

w’hi.ch dvefiihvrje,-sfttforest produce’. Section 62 is a part of

‘.VChapt~er”‘r9land deals with penaities and procedures. It

it “i.jifpost’a.lates when there is reason to beiieve that a forest

ofifence has been committed in respect of any forest

‘”gHproduce, such produce together with aii toois, boats,

64
vehicles or cattle or any other property used in committing

such offence, may be seized by any forest officer V:or.fl’pgol.i4ce

officer. Sub–section (2) envisages any

police officer. If he has reason tobelieve’ v_cj:i.hi’clAeVV’

has been used for transportation

respect of which there is reaso:n~~.to believe–.thatu”~off’e’nce has

been committed or is being ‘co’:~.V§..ririit’ted., he’m’a.yV.require the
driver or other persontin”_.Q;r1ar.g§’;§:i.of::Athetvehicle to stop the
vehicle and causeit long as it may
reasonably; contents of the
vehiclewd_uliris.pe:ct3 Vall’*re’cords'”re-lating to the goods carried
which are such driver or other person in

charge ofuthe vehicle.._ ‘”Tb~erefore, this provision confers the

p0V_’J’é~’.’ of s_eizu’r”e»0.n_.sthe forest officer when he suspects

‘cornmissioinv’~o’f’any forest offence relating to forest produce

d’e.fin~ed urrdjer.’a’$Vection 2(7) referred to above.

..Sri:’Thiruvengadam would contend that this provision

_fco’u.!d:”not be invoked as the property involved is iron ore to

exported which is covered by the provision of Section

V 11-3-1 and 11–I of the Customs Act and therefore, the

E
§

65
provisions of Customs Act being a Parliamentary legislation
would prevail, and not the Forest Act which is a”–,State

legislation. This proposition would have been

there been any conflict in the provisioVns”~._:offithelitwo

legislations. Section 11-H envisag;eAs'””‘iiiegia/ -exp_o’rtff’,,Vh?ean;s

the export of any goods in contraven_tior._? of provisions of,

this Act or any other law for”~th’e timelinllfolrce. This

means, if there is export of_.”g’oo’d-is in”-contravenition of the
Forest Act, then it comes~l.’wi’t’iiilnVV referred to in

clause H. The at :har,;d…..rel’ates]”tO..tfansportation of iron

ore extra–cte:d~gf.rori%;,fore’st..area”a~nd being exported without
forest permglits, provision of Section 11-H of

the Custorns_gAct Vi’s-att.raCtuéd.

. g.;yC:ctijoAn,_.11–IVHhas also been referred to by the learned

contend that unless the Central Govt, by

notifi__cat,_i_von,,uspecifies iron ore to be one of the goods which

|il<ely*.to illegally exported, iron ore is excluded from the
A a reading of Section 11-1 shows, 'if, having regard
Vi ..to§the magnitude of illegal export of goods of any class or

description, the Central Govt. is satisfied that it is expedient

A M'
7

VJ

\.’

69

are ciissoived and there shali be no impediment to the

investigating officer to proceed with the investigatioffii.

sci/ii

vgh*