Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 208 of 1964 under Article 226 of the Constitution, which quashed an appellate order of the Board of Revenue. The dispute concerned settlement of an excise shop in Dibrugarh area. The appellant, Biswabahan Das, was the lessee of the shop from 1956 to 1962 and again settled for 1962-64 by the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent, Gopen Chandra Hazarika, successfully challenged that settlement before the Board of Revenue, which set it aside and settled the shop with the respondent. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which found that evidence had been taken behind his back but declined relief because the licence period was about to expire. For the term 1964-67, the Deputy Commissioner again settled the shop with the respondent, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board examined whether the respondent was a suitable person and found that, as the holder of a firewood mahal licence, he had compounded an offence of illegally felling green trees by paying Rs. 50 when acting as a forest contractor. The Forest Beat Officer had detected that the respondent illegally felled green trees and converted them into firewood, though he was only entitled to cut dead and fallen trees. The Board held that the fact of compounding the offence did not clear his conduct and considered his moral character under Executive Instruction III, ultimately finding him unsuitable for the settlement. The High Court, however, relied on Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and held that the compounding of the offence had the effect of an acquittal, and therefore the Board could not take into account the respondent's conduct. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that Section 345(6) CrPC had no application to an offence under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, and that the Board was right in considering the respondent's conduct. The respondent argued that the offence was minor and that payment of compensation settled the matter without stigma, relying on Chandanmal v. Rupakula Ramkrishnayya and Reg. v. Rahimat. The Supreme Court examined Section 62 of the Assam Forest Regulation, which empowers a forest officer to accept compensation from a person suspected of a forest offence and provides that upon payment the suspected person is discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken. The Court noted that Section 345(6) CrPC provides that composition of an offence under Section 345 shall have the effect of acquittal, but this applies only to offences specified under subsections (1) and (2) of that section. The Court held that the principle cannot be extended to offences under other Acts unless there is a similar provision. It further reasoned that payment of compensation under Section 62 amounts to acceptance of the truth of the charge, but does not clear the person's character or vindicate his conduct. The Court rejected the respondent's contention that trivial offences once compounded cannot be raked up again, stating that no such benefit is conferred by the Assam Regulation. Following Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, the Court concluded that the Board of Revenue had not gone wrong in law in considering the respondent's past conduct, and the High Court was not justified in quashing the appellate order. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Board of Revenue's order was restored.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Compounding of Offences - Section 62 Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and Section 345(6) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Effect of compounding a forest offence by payment of compensation under Section 62 does not amount to an acquittal or clear the suspected person's character; Section 345(6) CrPC is limited to offences compounded under Section 345(1) or (2) and cannot be extended by analogy; payment of compensation under Section 62(1)(a) only bars further proceedings under Section 62(2) but does not vindicate conduct. Held that payment of compensation amounts to acceptance of the truth of the charge, and no provision in the Assam Regulation confers benefit of acquittal. (Paras 4-6) B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 Constitution of India - High Court erred in quashing Board of Revenue's appellate order as the Board could validly consider a tenderer's past conduct in rendering compensation for a forest offence while determining suitability for excise shop settlement; no error of jurisdiction or error apparent on face of record. Held that Board of Revenue did not exceed its jurisdiction or commit an error apparent, and the High Court was not justified in quashing the order. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compounding of a forest offence under Section 62 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 has the same effect as an acquittal under Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Board of Revenue's order on that ground.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of High Court dated January 24, 1964 in Civil Rule No. 208 of 1964 set aside; order of Board of Revenue restored; respondent not suitable for settlement of excise shop due to payment of compensation for forest offence
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 62 Assam Forest Regulation
- 1891 does not result in acquittal
- Section 345(6) Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1898 limited to offences compounded under Section 345(1) or (2)
- payment of compensation under Section 62(1)(a) amounts to acceptance of truth of charge
- Board of Revenue may consider moral character and past conduct of tenderer in excise settlement
- High Court erred in quashing Board of Revenue order under Article 226
