Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 845 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Lachhaman Mohanty

2014-12-05

D.DASH

body2014
JUDGMENT The respondent having been acquitted in the case where the prosecution was launched against him for commission of offence under Rule 21 of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1981 in 2(b) C. C. Case No.6 of 1994, the State has challenged the same. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent being the owner and proprietor of Basanti Furniture Unit at Talia was found to be in possession of 22 pieces of hand sawan ‘Kaima’ and 9 pieces of hand sawan ‘Piasal’ planks during the raid by Forest Range Officer, Forester and Guards. 3.In the trial prosecution examined six witnesses whereas the defence examined two. The Foresters have come to the dock as P.Ws.1 and 3, the Range Officers are P.Ws.2 and 4. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the Forest Guards. The respondent has examined himself and another in defence. 4.The trial Court on analysis of evidence has not found the evidence to be there on record to conclusively hold that the respondent had carried the timbers from Similipal Reserve Forest. So on that ground having not accepted the prosecution case as laid rather having held the defence story as acceptable being more probable in view of the evidence tendered from the side of the defence giving full account of those recovered forest produce, the order of acquittal has been passed. 5.Learned counsel for the State submits that here in this case the seizure of the wooden planks of different varieties having been made and admittedly from the premises of the respondent, it was for him to prove that he had the required transit permit for the same as necessary under the O.T.T. Rules. It is also his submission that the Court below ought not to have found the defence evidence to be sufficient as regards the account given for such possession of those wooden planks. 6.Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, supports the finding of the trial Court. According to him, accepting the facts and circumstances of the case, the complicity of the respondent attracting the penalty under Rule-21 of the O.T. and O.F.P. Rules does not stand. According to him, when it is the case of the defence that the forest produce were not brought on transit and when the prosecution is not giving any evidence in that regard, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent. According to him, when it is the case of the defence that the forest produce were not brought on transit and when the prosecution is not giving any evidence in that regard, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent. 7.Rule 21 of the Rules provides the penalties for contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules. Rule 4 provides that all forest produces in transit by land, rail or water shall be covered by a transit called the transit permit to be issued free of cost by the Divisional Forest Officer or by ACF authorized by him in that behalf when Rule 5 provides the cases of exceptions where transit permit under the Rules shall not be required. So, in the instant case the prosecution has projected the case that the seized wooden planks of different varieties have been brought from Similipal Reserve Forest and without any transit permit in that regard as required under Rule-4 for which there arises a case of contravention of the said Rule and thus the appellant is liable to be visited with punishment as provided in Rule-21. Therefore, the prosecution can only succeeded in case the above facts are been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7.Prosecution case is that those planks were seized from the premises of the respondent. But no such evidence has been tendered that those were even brought to the place on transit either from forest or from any other place. It is also the evidence of P.W.4 that such varieties of trees are available on the private lands. So, therefrom, it cannot be inferred that those varieties of trees being only available in the forest could not have come to the premises of the respondent without being carried from the forest. The respondent has deposed that those were from his own trees and were lying having fallen due to cyclone. In such state of affair in the evidence and in view of the provision of law as aforesaid, this Court find no justifiable reason to differ with the view taken by the trial Court. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with. 8.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.