Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Gurudev Singh Rai vs Authorised Officer-Cum-Asst. ... on 17 February, 1992

Pijush Kanti Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 24 March, 1993

which seems to be a deliberate legislative omission consistent with the legislative intent in respect of the matter. Therefore the provisions of the Indian Forest Act as amended in West Bengal admit of no scope for supplying or reading any new words in Section 59-A with a view to permitting the concerned authorised officer to impose fine in lieu of confiscation under the said section on the assumption of any legislative intent in that regard inasmuch as the legislative intent as reflected from the West Bengal amendments appears to be rather pronouncedly different. In view of the clear intent and mandate of the legislature as discussed above, there is therefore little scope for inferring, assuming or presuming that there was any accidental or un-noticed deficiency in Section 59-A in the matter of its drafting which, if brought to the notice of the legislature, would have prompted it to enact any provision now missing in the said section empowering the authorised officer to impose fine only in deserving cases in lieu of confiscation of vehicle. The Orissa High Court decision in Gurudeb Singh Rai (supra), therefore does not apply in interpreting Section 59-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Section 59-A will therefore have to be read as it is without adding anything thereto or substracting anything therefrom. It is however always open to the legislature to reconsider or review the matter in future, but that is entirely a different matter.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kailash Chand And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 April, 1994

26. Learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the decision in Gurdev Singh Rai v. Authorised Officer, AIR 1992 Orissa 287, under Section 56(2a) of the Orissa Forest Act. The Court noticed that while providing for confiscation, the Legislature did not provide for any lesser penalty by way of fine. The Court thought that this was a lacuna in the Act and resolved to read into the statute words which are not there, namely, words providing for alternative penalty for levy of fine. We have given our serious thought to the ratio and the reasoning of the Orissa High Court. With respect, we are unable to agree with the same. We are quite conscious that interpretative process leading to absurdity should ordinarily be avoided and where two interpretations are possible, one which furthers the object of the statute should be preferred. In extreme cases, it may be quite open to a Court to read into the statute words which are not there, but we do not think that this exercise can be taken to the limit suggested by the Orissa High Court by introducing levy of fine which the Legislature never thought of. The omission to provide for imposition of fine by the Authorised Officer may not be a lacuna. It may be a result of deliberate policy on the part of the Legislature. What the Legislature intended was confiscation of the forest produce or the implements or vehicles used for commission of a forest offence. The provision for confiscation of the vehicle is introduced not to punish the offender or the abettor, but to remove the vehicle out of circulation and as deterrent. Choice is given to the Criminal Court to impose sentence of imprisonment or fine or of both as punishment for the penal offence. A choice is quite unnecessary to be provided in regard to confiscation. Either the article is to be confiscated or it is not to be confiscated depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. If imposition of fine is considered adequate, criminal prosecution could be pursued with vigour and the Authorised Officer could very well refrain from ordering confiscation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 6 February, 1998

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, in my view, the Division Bench decision in the case of Gurudeo Singh Rai (supra) cannot be said to be a settled law which hold the filed. Though the Division Bench has taken note of the proposition of law in Maxwell on Statutes to the effect that where the main object and intention of a statute are clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the draftsman's unskilfulness or ignorance of the law, except on a case of necessity, or the absolute intractability of the language used and the Courts are very reluctant to substitute words in a statute or to add words to it, and it has been said that they will only do so where there is repugnancy to good sense. The Division Bench has expressed the view that if the deficiency in Section 56 (2a) of Orissa Forest Act, 1972 would have come to the knowledge of the legislature, it would have definitely provided for imposition of fine as an alternative punishment in those cases where the authorities may not be satisfied about the desirability of confiscation and may not also feel happy in allowing the owner of the vehicle to go scot-free. Having observed thus, the learned Judges read in the aforesaid section a power to impose fine in lieu of confiscation in appropriate cases. However, their Lordships were of the view that what could be the appropriate cases cannot be laid down with rigidity the same has to be left to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority.
Patna High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 4 November, 2003

"9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the Court may consider the desirability of setting aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the value of the contraband found on the truck was very small compared to the value of the truck and in lieu thereof impose a fine. He argued that though Section 52 (3) of the Forest Act does not provide for imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation, such a provision can be read therein in the interest of justice and in that connection he relied on the observations made by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Gurudev Singh Rai v. Authorised Officer-cum-Asstt. Conservator of Forest (A.I.R. 1992 Orissa 287). The Court while dealing with the confiscation of vehicle under Section 56 (2a) of the Forest Act somewhat similar to the provisions of Section 52 (3) of the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 was pleased to observe, to quote:--
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - C K Prasad - Full Document

M/S. Rameswarlal Shyamsundar vs State Of Odisha on 11 April, 2022

10. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in both the cases argued that the judgment in the State of Odisha v. Sahoo Traders (supra) was contrary to the judgment of a coordinate Bench in Gurudev Singh Ray v. Authorized Officer (1993) 76 CLT 671 (Ori). However, he submitted that there was no need to refer to the question of correctness of the decision in M/s. Sahoo Traders to a Larger Bench on account of three subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court of India categorically answering the question in favour of the Assessee and against the Department.
Orissa High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - R K Pattanaik - Full Document

Rafiq Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2017

26. Learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the decision in Gurdev Singh Rai v. Authorised Officer, AIR 1992 Orissa 287, under Section 56(2a) of the Orissa Forest Act. The Court noticed that while providing for confiscation, the Legislature did not provide for any lesser penalty by way of fine. The Court thought that this was a lacuna 10 in the Act and resolved to read into the statute words which are not there, namely, words providing for alternative penalty for levy of fine. We have given our serious thought to the ratio and the reasoning of the Orissa High Court. With respect, we are unable to agree with the same. We are quite conscious that interpretative process leading to absurdity should ordinarily be avoided and where two interpretations are possible, one which furthers the object of the statute should be preferred. In extreme cases, it may be quite open to a Court to read into the statute words which are not there, but we do not think that this exercise can be taken to the limit suggested by the Orissa High Court by introducing levy of fine which the Legislature never thought of. The omission to provide for imposition of fine by the Authorised Officer may not be a lacuna. It may be a result of deliberate policy on the part of the Legislature. What the Legislature intended was confiscation of the forest produce or the implements or vehicles used for commission of a forest offence. The provision for confiscation of the vehicle is introduced not to punish the offender or the abettor, but to remove the vehicle out of circulation and as deterrent. Choice is given to the Criminal Court to impose sentence of imprisonment or fine or of both as punishment for the penal offence. A choice is quite unnecessary to be provided in regard to confiscation. Either the article is to be confiscated or it is not to be confiscated depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. If imposition of fine is considered adequate, criminal prosecution could be pursued with vigour and the Authorised Officer could very well refrain from ordering confiscation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Abhiram Chatria vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 12 August, 2022

3.1 The plea of the Petitioner before the Authorized Officer as well as Appellate Court was that he had never instructed the driver to transport the forest produce in his vehicle. The vehicle was being used for conveyance of children to Central School, Bhawanipatna. Neither the Authorized Officer nor the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the deposition of the driver as well as the Petitioner to the effect that the driver was never instructed to transport teak planks in the offending vehicle. He further submitted that the driver in his deposition clearly stated that the teak planks were loaded in the offending vehicle under threat of some persons. All these materials were not taken into consideration by the Authorized Officer as well as the Appellate Authority while directing for confiscation of the vehicle. He further relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Gurudev Singh Rai Vs. Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests and another, reported in AIR 1992 Orissa 287, wherein this Court, while upholding the decision of the Authorized Officer, directed to release the vehicle by compounding of offence on payment of fine.
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K R Mohapatra - Full Document
1   2 Next