PREM NARAIN KISHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a shop-keeper. On 16-12-1970, one ranger of Forest happened to be at his shop. He found that the petitioner was selling 15 Kgs. of Khair gum. Under The Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (No. 9 of 1969) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') gum has been included in the definition of "forest produce" and its pur chase and sale are regulated by sections 5 and 13 of the Act. The act makes provision for regulating trade of specified forest produce by creation of State monopoly in such trade. The purchase and sale of Khair gum by the petitioner prima facie appear to be in contravention of sections 5 and 13 of the Act. The petitioner at the time had no licence to sell the gum in retail as provided by section 13.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner realising that some offence has been committed by him under the Act applied to compound the offence under section 17 of the Act. He made an application which was forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer empowered to accept a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence. The Divisional Forest Officer by his order dated 21-12-1970 fixed Rs. 1,000 as the amount of compensation payable by the petitioner under section 19. The petitioner did not pay the sum of rs. 1,000. Therefore, a notice of demand for recovery of the said amount was issued. Thereafter, revenue recovery proceedings for realising Rs. 1,000 were started against the petitioner. The petitioner made representations to the superior officers as also to the State Government that the realisation of rs. 1,000 as arrears of land revenue was unwarranted and without authority of law but to no effect. Hence, he has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the recovery as arrears of land revenue as illegal.

(3.) FROM the above facts, it would be clear that the petitioner had himself applied for composition of the offence but after the amount of compensation was fixed as Rs. 1,000 he did not pay the same. The question is whether this amount could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Section 19 of the Act provides that the State Government may, by notification, empower a Forest Officer to accept from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed an offence punishable under the act, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which such person is suspected to have committed. The effect of composition of offence is that the person suspected of the offence shall be discharged and the property other than the specified forest produce, if seized, shall be released and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. By clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 19, it is clear that the person empowered by the State Government has to accept a sum of money by way of compensation for offence and on such payment being made under subsection (2), the person suspected is exonerated of any criminal liability under the Act. The composition of the offence is only complete on acceptance of the money by the officer empowered. Sub-section (2) merely states the consequences of composition of the offence. The payment of money is a necessary step in the process of composition of the offence. The words "on the payment of such sum of money" in sub-section (2) do not refer to payment of money after the composition of the offence. The above words are merely indicative that with the payment of money, the composition is complete and the consequences that ensue on such composition are then prescribed. The section does not create a civil liability in respect of the offer to compound the offence made by the suspected offender. The section merely deals with the power of the Government to compound on acceptance of the money as compensation and the consequences of the composition. We, therefore, do not think that Rs. 1,000 could be realised as a debt due to the Government.