Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Examination of the provisions contained in Section 54 providing for power to compound offences under the Act also leads to the same conclusion that every property seized irrespective of proof of commission of the offence and finding in that respect by the Criminal Court, would not become property of the State. Section 54 empowers the Authorities to compound the offences and release the seized properties in favour of the person suspected of the commission of the offence. If the argument on behalf of the State is accepted a property seized on accusation would become the property of the State and can never be released even on the compounding of the offence. The provisions of Clause (d) of Section 39 have to be reasonably and harmoniously construed with other provisions of the Act and the Code which together provide a detailed procedure for the trial of the offences. If, as contended on behalf of the State, seizure of property merely on accusation would make the property to be of the Government, it would have the result of depriving an accused of his property without proof of his guilt. On such interpretation Clause (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. The interpretation placed by the State would mean that a specified officer under the Act merely by seizure of property of an accused would deprive him of his property which he might be using for his trade, profession or occupation. This would be a serious encroachment on the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his trade, occupation or business. The power thus would be exercised by an Executive Officer and without any proof of commission of an offence. Such arbitrary and uncannalised powers cannot be allowed to any Executive Authority. That would be against basic structure of the Constitution. The Constitution envisages trial of offences by an independent judiciary. An interpretation which would render Clause (d) of Section 39(1) to be unconstitutional has to be eschewed and interpretation which makes it constitutional should be preferred. See the following observations of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955) :