Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1182 (JHR)

Suren Tiriya v. State of Bihar

2013-10-25

H.C.MISHRA

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.2.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1994, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment dated 23.8.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chaibasa, in C/3 Case No. 52 of 1990, whereby, the petitioners were found guilty and were convicted for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each. 3. From the offence report, it appears that the petitioners were apprehended in the night of 1.10.1990 at 11.00 P.M. near Hatgamharia, from a truck which was found to be loaded with wood. The forest official demanded the transit permit for wood, which was produced but it is alleged that the descriptions of the wood loaded on the truck were not in accordance with the transit permit. It is also alleged that the transit permit had already expired. With these two allegations, the offence report was submitted for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The seizure list was prepared, which shows that the same was prepared on 2.10.1990. The prosecution report was also submitted in the instant case and ultimately, the petitioners were put to trial. 4. In course of trial, six prosecution witnesses were examined by the police out of whom. P.W.1 Rameshwar Bandia is the Forest Guard and P.W. 6 Lalan Jha is the Assistant Conservator of Forest, who had seized the wood, have supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses, P.W. 2 to P.W. 5 were only tendered by the prosecution. Both these witnesses have stated that the wood were seized by, P.W. 6 Lalan Jha and the truck was brought to Chaibasa Range office, where the seizure list was prepared. The transit permit. offence report, seizure list and the other documents have been proved by P.W. 6 Lalan Jha. On the basis of the evidence on record, the petitioners were found guilty for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and they were convicted and sentenced for the same. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. 5. On the basis of the evidence on record, the petitioners were found guilty for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and they were convicted and sentenced for the same. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two points in course of his submissions. The first submission of the learned counsel is that though it is alleged that the transit permit had already expired, but the transit permit, which has been proved as Ext-I in the Court below, clearly shows that the transit permit was valid from 9.00 P.M. of 1.10.19990 to 10.00 A.M. of 2.10.1990. The offence report, proved as Ext-4 clearly shows that the truck was apprehended by the Forest Officials on 1.10.1990 at 11.00 P.M. in the night, and as such. it cannot be said that the transit permit had already expired. It is secondly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even though the seizure list is said to be prepared and it has been proved as Ext-3 but it clearly shows that there is no signatures of any independent witness on the said seizure list and it bears the signatures of only the forest officials bearing the date 2.10.1990. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out from the evidence of P.W.1 Rameshwar Bandia as also from the evidence of P.W. 6 Lalan Jha, that the said seizure list was prepared not at the place of apprehension of the truck, rather it was prepared at Chaibasa Range Office on the next day, still no independent was called. It is also pointed out from the evidence of P.W. 1 Rameshwar Bandia, that he has clearly stated that no independent witness was called at the time of preparation of the seizure list. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the said seizure list is only a manufactured document with oblique purpose, and absolutely illegal and the same cannot be taken into consideration for finding the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that two witnesses examined by the prosecution, who are the Forest Officials, have fully supported the prosecution case. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that two witnesses examined by the prosecution, who are the Forest Officials, have fully supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. 7. After having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Ext-I clearly shows that there was transit permit for carrying the wood and the said transit permit was valid from 9.00 P.M. of 1.10.1990 to 10.00 A.M. of 2.10.1990. The offence report clearly shows that the truck was apprehended on 1.10.1990 at 11.00 P.M. in the night, i.e. when the transit permit was still in force. Though there is allegation in the offence report that the wood loaded on the truck were not in accordance with the description of the wood mentioned in the transit permit, but it clearly appears from the seizure list, which has been proved as Ext-3, that there is no signature of any independent witness on the said seizure list, and the signatures of the forest officials thereon, bear the date 2.10.1990. It is also admitted in the evidence of P.W. 1 Rameshwar Bandia, as also of P.W. 6 Lalan Jha, that the seizure list was prepared at Chaibasa Range Office, and P.W. 1 Rameshwar Bandia has clearly stated that no independent witness had been called at the time of preparation of the seizure list. 8. In my considered view, the evidence on record, as discussed above, clearly falsifies the prosecution case that at the time of seizure, the transit permit was not in force. Similarly, the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case that the wood being carried on the truck, were of different descriptions as mentioned in the transit permit, in as much as, no reliance can be placed on the seizure list, which was not prepared in the presence of the independent witnesses, even though it was prepared at the Forest Range Office at Chaibasa on the next day, when and where, the independent witnesses could be easily available. For these reasons, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the accusation against- the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubts, and it is a fit case in which the petitioners aught to have been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial Court below. In the facts of this case, the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 23.8.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, in C/3 Case No. 52 of 1990, as also the judgment dated 11.2.2000, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1994, are hereby, set aside, and the petitioners are given the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the accusation. The petitioners are on bail and they are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 10. This application is accordingly allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith. Application allowed.