Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 35 (HP)

STATE v. SABLA

1987-06-08

V.P.GUPTA

body1987
JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—The respondent was charged and tried for having committed an offence under section 23 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter the Act). He was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Chopal on 31-3-1984 and was sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. 2. Feeling aggrieved from the conviction and sentence, the respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 50-S/10 of 1984. The appeal was heard and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 9-11-1984 and the learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of the respondent and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the Judicial Magistrate Chopal. 3. Dissatisfied from the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the State has filed the present appeal, 4. Briefly the prosecution version against the respondent is that he illicitly out five deodar trees of II-A and III Class of Chuna forest on or about 15-9-1981 and has thus committed on offence punishable under section 33 of the Act. In support of the prosecution story the appellant produced Sant Ram forest guard (PW 1), Daulat Ram (PW 2) and Viri Singh (PW 3). The damage report (Ex. P-C), Spurdarinama (Ex. P-A) and the Iqbarnama (Ex. P-B) of the respondent were also produced in evidence by the prosecution. The learned Judicial Magistrate believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the respondent. The respondent in his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. denied the various charges levelled against him and claimed that he had not cut any tree from the forest as alleged by the prosecution. 5. In appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, it appears that the respondent claimed acquittal on merits. The learned Sessions Judge, how ever, also framed a point for determination as to whether the offence had been compounded and whether in view of the compounding of the offence, the prosecution could be launched against the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the offence had been compound ed and for this reason no prosecution could be launched against the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the forest officer who had allegedly compounded the offence was not empowered to compound the offence. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the forest officer who had allegedly compounded the offence was not empowered to compound the offence. He further contends that section 68 of the Act is not applicable because the respondent had not paid the amount of compensation assessed by the forest officer. It is contended that in such circum stances, the respondent could be proceeded against criminally under section 33 of the Act and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is wrong in setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate and in acquitting the respondent. The learned Counsel further contends that the case may be sent back to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for deciding the same on merits. 8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent con tends that the respondent had not committed any offence and in fact he never compounded the offence with any forest officer. It is contended that the respondent also never agreed to pay any compensation after compounding the offence. The learned Counsel contends that the ground upon which the respondent had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in fact does not exist because the offence was never compounded by the respondent and there was no question of compounding the offence because the respondent denied having committed any offence or cut any tree. He contends that the respondent is an old man and has not committed any offence, but because the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not given a decision on merits, there fore, the case may be remanded for decision on merits and before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge he would be arguing ail the points on facts as well as law. 9. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 10. The respondents counsel has not accepted the factum of the compounding of the offence by the respondent and it is also admitted by him that no compensation/damages were paid by the respondent. Even if the offence is compounded still under section 68 (2) of the Act the further proceedings against the offender are only barred if the offender had paid the amount of compensation/damages. Even if the offence is compounded still under section 68 (2) of the Act the further proceedings against the offender are only barred if the offender had paid the amount of compensation/damages. In the present case the assessed compensation as claimed by the prosecution has admittedly not been paid by the respondent and therefore, the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that due to the compounding of the offence, the prosecution against the respondent cannot be launched, is not sustainable. This finding has thus to be quashed and is accordingly set aside. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not given any decision on the merits of the case and in these circumstances, as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the case has to be remanded for re-decision on merits. 11. As a result of the above discussion, the present appeal is accepted and the judgment, dated 941-1984 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (II) Shimla is set aside and the case is sent back to the Addl. Sessions Judge (II) Shimla for a re-decision on merits. The respondent shall be at liberty to take all the points before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (II) Shimla for securing an acquittal and in support of his appeal. The parties shall appear in the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (II) Shimla, on 1-7-1987. Appeal allowed.