Madras High Court
M. Muthuramalingam And Etc. Etc. vs District Forest Officer And Anr. on 22 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ420
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Crl. O.P. Nos. 15867, 17478 and 22720 of 1999 are being disposed of by this common order, as the question involved in all these three petitions is one and the same.
2. These petitions have been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in Wild Life, O.R. No. 1/1999-2000, dated 13-8-1999 imposing compounding fees on them for having committed offences under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the Wild Life Protection Act.
3. The case of the petitioners as contained in their affidavits is as follows :--
(a) M. Muthuramalingam, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 15867 of 1999, is the former Panchayat President of Agamalai village. He is having coffee estate at Agamalai in Theni District.
(b) P. V. Rajendiran, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 17478 of 1999, is the resident of Vedaranyam and the former Honorary Wild Life Warden, besides he was the Member of Legislative Assembly for two terms and also the Member of Parliament for one term.
(c) R. Rajagopala Thondaiman, the petitioner in Cri. O.P. No. 22720 of 1999, is the resident of Trichy. He is the only son and the legal heir of the Raja of Pudukottai.
(d) All the three petitioners are friends and owning estate and palace at Kodaikanal. Both Rajendiran and Rajagopala Thondaiman are gun licence holders. All the three petitioners on 11-8-1999 on the eve of 'Solar Eclipse', started from Kodaikanal in a Mahindra Jeep for taking bath at 'Kumbakarai falls'. Since it was a solar eclipse day, they started at 6-45 p.m. and reached Kumbakarai falls at about 8-30 p.m. They were also carrying their guns with them. When the petitioners were near the Kumbakarai falls in the Jeep, the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Periyakulam Range, the second respondent herein, suddenly intercepted and checked their vehicle. Since guns were found with them, the second respondent, on suspicion that they came there for hunting, seized the jeep as well as the guns and took them to Periyakulam Forest Office. Though all the petitioners informed him about their status and that they came there only for taking bath in Kumbakarai falls, the second respondent did not heed to their words and illegally confined them from 9-00 p.m. on 11-8-1999 till 11-00 a.m. on 13-8-1999. During their confinement, the petitioners were forced to compound the offence by paying Rs. 1 Lakh each totalling about Rs. 3 Lakhs. Since the petitioners could not withstand the intensity of the humiliation and harassment, the petitioner Rajagopala Thondaiman arranged from his source a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs and remitted the same into State Bank of India, Dindigul Branch on 13-8-1999 and produced the copy of the challan before the second respondent. On that day, all the three petitioners were compelled to sign in papers with dotted lines. Only thereafter, they were released on that date. Thus, they were in illegal confinement from 11-8-1999 to 13-8-1999.
4. Challenging the illegal confinement and the collection of compounding fees of Rs. 3 Lakhs in total under compulsion, the petitioners have approached this Court through these petitions to quash the above proceedings.
5. Though the petitioners have filed separate petitions, the grounds raised are common, which are as follows :--
(i) Either under Section 54 of the Wild Life Protection Act or under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the compounding fees that could be collected should be to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- by the Deputy Conservator of Forest under the Wild Life Protection Act. Only the Forest Officer specially empowered under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act could impose compounding fees only when there is an option given by the person involved in the offence. In this case, the second respondent-Assistant Conservator of Forest being an inexperienced trainee Officer forced the petitioners to pay the amount on the basis of his suspicion that the petitioners came there for hunting, merely because they were with the guns.
(ii) Under Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act and Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the properties can be seized by the authorities only when there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed. Under these Acts, there is no prohibition for carrying the guns. But, in this case, the guns, which were with the petitioners, did not contain any ammunitions. Therefore, the assumption of the second respondent that the petitioners cam there for hunting wild animals is baseless. Consequently, the search and seizure is illegal.
(iii) Admittedly, they were arrested on 11-8-1999 and released and discharged only on 13-8-1999. Under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners must have been informed about the ground of arrest and they ought to have been produced before the criminal Court within 24 hours. In the counter, the respondents admitted that the petitioners were arrested and the weapons were seized. Therefore, the failure to give opportunity to the petitioners to get the advice of counsel and their non-production before the criminal Court as provided under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act would vitiate the entire proceedings.
6. In elaboration of these points, Mr. B. Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cri. O.P. No. 17478 of 1999, Mr. N. R. Chandran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cri. O.P. No. 22720 of 1999, and Mr. M. Balasubramaniam, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cri. O.P. No. 15867 of 1999 have argued at length.
7. In reply to the above submissions, the learned Government Advocate, on the strength of the counter filed by the respondents, submitted that the compounding fees collected from the petitioners were only on their voluntary confession and the same had been done in compliance with the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the Wild Life Protection Act and as such, the proceedings cannot be said to be illegal.
8. The learned Government Advocate would also incidently refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (1994) 1 Mad LW (Cri) 121 (K. Rajamanickam v. State of Tamil Nadu) and contend that the collection of compounding fees being an executive order under the Act cannot be questioned under Section 482, Cr. P.C. as it would not. be considered to be the proceedings in the Court as provided under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
10. 1 have also gone through the original records produced by the respondents before this Court relating to the registration of the case and closing the matter on payment of compounding fees.
11. Even at the threshold, it shall be stated that the submission made by the learned Government advocate regarding the maintainability of the petition under Section 482. Cr. P.C. on the strength of the Division Bench judgment, referred to above has to be rejected, inasmuch as in these petitions, the petitioners not only challenged the collection of compounding fees, but also pointed out the irregularities of seizure and arrest 0and the non-production of the accused before the Magistrate.
12. Therefore, this Court would be empowered to deal with the question as to whether the procedures to be followed by the respondents as contemplated under the Acts and the Criminal Procedure Code have been correctly followed or not, by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to secure the ends of Justice.
13. On goving through the original records produced by the respondents before this Court in a sealed cover would give the following factors :--
(a) The second respondent-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Periyakulam Range along with his officials went to the Reserve Forest in Periyakulam range on 11-8-1999 and found that these three petitioners were carrying guns loaded with ammunitions deep into the Pamper Reserve Forest at about 9.00 p.m. They were intercepted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Periyakulam Range. During enquiry, it was ascertained from them that they entered into the Reserve Forest for hunting wild animals. They also gave confession statement admitting the same. Therefore, a case was registered against the petitioners in Wild Life O.R. No. 1 of 1999-2000 for the offences under Section 21(d) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and under Sections 9 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and the following weapons were seized from them :--
(1) 7 mm BSA Company make England rifle with Telescope No. 58553 -- One;
(2) Double barrel rifle No. 191007 --One;
(3) Torch light -- Two Nos.; and (4) Cartridges -- Two Nos.
(b) After registration of the case, all the three petitioners expressed their willingness to compound the offence. Therefore, they were taken to the District Forest Officer, Dindigul, since the District Forest Officer, was holding additional charge of Kodaikanal Forest, for the purpose of compounding the offence.
(c) The Assistant Conservator of Forest sent a report to the District Forest Officer along with the confession statement of the petitioners and the seized articles on 11-8-1999 recommending for imposition of compounding fees, since the petitioners, in a written requisition, gave option to pay the compounding fees and requested for admonition. The said statement was recorded by the Forest Range Officer, Devathanapatti Division and attested by three officials, namely, the Forest Range Officer, Adukkam Beat, the Forest Range Officer, Parnpar West Beat and the Forest Range Officer, Pampar East Beat.
(d) The District Forest Officer, Dindigul, is competent to compound the offence as per the provisions under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and Section 54(2)(a) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The District Forest Officer imposed compounding fees of Rs. 1 lakh on each petitioner as they agreed to pay the same. The petitioners on 13-8-1999 paid the said amount into State Bank of India, Dindigul, and thereafter, the weapons, which were seized from them, were handed over to the petitioners on 13-8-1999, after obtaining signed vouchers from them.
14. On going through the counter and the original records, it is seen that the petitioners were found with English rifle with Telescope, Double barrel rifle with cartridges, etc. It is also specifically stated in the complaint and in the counter that they were found deep inside the Pamper Reserve Forest with the weapons as mentioned above. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they went to Kumbakarai falls for taking bath cannot be accepted.
15. Furthermore, it is the contention of the petitioners that they were carrying with them only guns and no ammunitions. In the same breath, they would also contend that they were awarded with so many prizes in shooting competitions and they were always carrying those weapons with them for self-protection.
16. When it is the case of the petitioners that no ammunitions were available with them, there is no reason as to why they were carrying the guns alone without ammunitions for self-protection.
17. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that compounding fees could be levied by the Deputy Conservator of Forest under Section 54 of the Wild Life Protection Act and under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act only to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-, that too, when option is given by the person who committed the offence.
18. But, the reading of Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and Section 54(1)(a) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 would make it clear that the District Forest Officer is the competent officer to compond the offence. It is also revealed from Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act that any Forest Officer may accept from any person reasonably suspected of having committed any forest offence by way of compensation, while compounding the said offence.
19. As per Section 54 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the offence can be compounded by any officer, who is empowered to do so by the notification issued by the Central Government. In this case, it is stated that the District Forest Officer has been empowered to compound the offence under Section 54 of the Wild Life Protection Act as indicated above.
20. Reading of Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act would clearly show that any Forest Officer can collect compounding fees by way of compensation for the offence. This section does not indicate the maximum limit. However, it is stated that where any property has been seized as liable to confiscation may release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such Officer. So, the whole reading of Section 55 would reveal that it is open to the Forest Officer not only to collect compensation for the offence, but also to collect the value of the property seized.
21. It is also mentioned in the Section that the same can be estimated by such Officer. So, both for compounding the offence and for the value of the property to be returned, the District Forest Officer estimated that each has to pay Rs. 1 lakh. This estimation, in my view, cannot be said to be wrong.
22. As indicated above, the compounding fees had been collected by the District Forest Officer, after proper estimation as per the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
23. Furthermore, it is noticed that the petitioners were not only carrying England rifle with Telescope and Double barrel rifle, but also ammunitions, namely, cartridges. Under these circumstances, the collection of compounding fees as compensation under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act cannot be said to be illegal in the light of the above facts.
24. As a next ground, it is submitted that the detention beyond 24 hours and the non-production of the accused before the Court would make the proceedings invalid, in view of the violation of the principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam .
25. It is true that in the counter it is admitted that after registration of the case, the petitioners were arrested on 11-8-1999 and the guns and cartridges were seized from them. It cannot also be disputed that once a person is arrested, he must be produced before the concerned Court within 24 hours, as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitution of India.
26. But, in the instant case, after registration of the case, arrest of the petitioners and seizure of the properties, the petitioners requested the authorities admonition by allowing them to pay any amount of compensation as compounding fees.
27. Under Section 55(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, after payment of compounding fees by the person reasonably suspected of having committed any forest offence, the Forest Officer shall discharge the said person and also release the property seized. It is also provided in the said Section that once the compounding fee is collected in pursuance of the acceptance by the Forest Officer as provided under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, no further proceedings shall be taken against such person. Therefore, the Forest Officer would not be entitled to pursue the proceedings either by filing a complaint before the Criminal Court in respect of the offence or by producing the accused persons before the said Court requesting for remand.
28. As a matter of fact, the Assistant Conservator of Forest, while sending the report to the District Forest Officer recommended for imposition of compounding fees and for discharge of the petitioners. Accordingly, the District Forest Officer imposed compounding fees and on collection of the said amount, the petitioners were discharged and the properties seized were also returned on obtaining their signed vouchers. Therefore, the question of non-production of the accused before the criminal Court would not arise.
29. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that they were detained from 9.00 p.m. on 11-8-1999 till 11.00 a.m. 13-8-1999 for about 39 hours. It is mentioned in the counter that on 11-8-1999 itself they gave a statement admitting the offence and requesting the authorities to admonish them by collecting the compounding fees as fixed by them. Accordingly, to enable them to arrange the amount, they were allowed to go out on 12-8-1999 and on 13-8-1999, they came back with the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs which was deposited into State Bank of India, Dindigul and consequently, they were discharged.
30. In the petition filed by Muthuramalingam, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 15867 of 1999, it is admitted that Rajagopalan Thondaiman, another petitioner, arranged from his soucrce Rs. 3 Lakhs and remitted the same into State Bank of India, Dindigul at 12.30 a.m. on 13-8-1991 and produced the remitted copy of the challan before the second respondent herein. This admission made by the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 15867 of 1999 would indicate that the petitioners were allowed by the second respondent to go out to arrange for the payment of compounding fees as requested by them. In such situation, the question of illegal detention for about 39 hours cannot arise.
31. As a last ground, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the search and the seizure were illegal, in view of the fact that there are no materials to show that the petitioners have committed any offence either under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act or under the Wild Life Protection Act.
32. This contention also, in my view, would be untenable. The case had been registered when they were caught red handed with the weapons along with ammunitions for the offences under Section 21 (d) of the Forest Act and under Section 41 of the Wild Life Act.
33. According to the respondent, they' were found deep in the Reserve Forest. Section 21 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act would relate to the penalties for trespass into the reserve forest. Section 21(h). of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act would relate to contravention of rules regarding hunting. Section 9 of the Wild Life Protection Act would provide for prohibition of hunting. Section 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act, would envisage even an attempt to contravene the Section would amount to an offence.
34. The complaint registered by the Forest Officer and the report submitted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest to the District Forest Officer would clearly show that the petitioners were found carrying the weapons along with ammunitions in the Reserve Forest on 11-8-1999 at about 9.00 p.m. On interception, they gave a statement which was reduced into writing that they came for the purpose of hunting wild animals. The said statement which is available in the original records shows that the same had been written in clear letters and at the end of the page all the petitioners had signed in the said statement. In the said statement itself, the petitioners had expressed willingness to pay compounding fees as fixed by the authorities.
35. Under those circumstances, the contention made by the counsel for the petitioners that they went to Kumpakarai falls for taking bath and when they were standing near the road side, they were forcibly taken to the forest office and confession statement was recorded from them under compulsion cannot be countenanced, as in my view, the registration of the case and the seizure of the weapons along with ammunitions by the respondents are legal.
36. In view of what is stated in the above paragraphs, none of the grounds would impress me to hold as tenable.
37. As admitted by the petitioners, they are not ordinary citizens. One person is a former Panchayat Board President for long number of years. The other petitioner is the son of the Raja of Pudukottai. One another petitioner is the former M.L.A. and former M.P. who would claim that he is the former , Honorary Wild Life Warden. When such being the position, they should have refused to sign in any statement. If the case projected by the petitioners is really true, they would have taken proper action by complaining to both the State Government and the Central Government relating to the alleged misuse of power exercised by the second respondent, immediately after their release.
38. Admittedly, the petitioners were released on 13-8-1999. The petitioner Muthuramalingam filed the petition in Crl. O.P. No. 15867 of 1999 only in the month of September, 1999. P.V. Rajendiran, another petitioner, filed Crl. O.P. No. 17478 of 1999 only on 29-9-1999. Rajagopalan Thondaiman, another petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 22720 of 1999 filed the petition only on 22-12-1999.
39. In the meantime, the petitioners, who are holding high position, did not choose to take any step to bring to the notice of the higher officials or the Executive Head of the respective Governments. Furthermore, the reading of the affidavits filed by these petitioners would also make it obvious that their story about taking bath in Kumbakarai falls is not consistent.
40. This apart, one of the petitioners would state that the registration of the case was made against them by the second respondent, since he wanted to show over-enthusiasm, as he was an inexperienced trainee Officer.
41. The other petitioner Rajagopalan Thondaiman would state in his affidavit that the second respondent was pressurised by his enemies to file a false case against him.
42. But, the fact remains, as indicated above, the second respondent, instead of producing them before the Court to send them to judicial custody, recommended, to the District Forest Officer to impose compounding fees and discharge them as per their request.
43. Having regard to the fact-situation as explained above, I am not able to hold that the action taken by the respondents herein is illegal or mala fide.
44. Hence, these petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Crl. M.Ps. are closed.