Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 316 (ORI)

Ravinder Singh v. State of Orissa

2022-07-25

SASHIKANTA MISHRA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Sashikanta Mishra, J. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 14 read with Section 4 of the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 (in short “Control Act, 1991”) and under Rule 21 read with Rules 4, 8, 10(h) and 14 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (in short “O.T.T. Rules, 1980”) as per judgment passed on 13.2.2004 by Learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada in 2(b)CC No.6 of 2000 and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 14 read with Section 4 of the Control Act,1991 and S.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further S.I. for one month for the offence under Rule 21 read with Sections 4, 8, 10(h) and 14 the O.T.T. Rules with all such sentences being directed to run concurrently. The said judgment was confirmed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2004 as per judgment passed on 11.10.2006. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present revision. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is that on 23.03.2000, the Forester of Khariar Road and staff of Khariar Forest Division conducted a search at the carpentry unit workshop and the saw mill premises of the accused-petitioner. At the time of such search and seizure an Executive Magistrate was present. It was found that the saw mill was functioning inside the carpentry workshop and that there were finished and semi-finished wooden furniture in the premises as also in the adjacent house of the accused. It was further found that the accused was running the saw mill without valid license and had also stored forest produce such as logs of Sishu, Saguan, Gamhari without any valid permit. As such, the logs were seized and offence report was drawn up and the case was inquired into. Upon completion of such enquiry final prosecution report was submitted against the accused under the aforementioned sections and rules. The accused took the plea of denial. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 13 witnesses and also proved the documents marked exhibits 1 to 3. The defence examined 5 witnesses from its side but did not prove any document. 4. The accused took the plea of denial. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 13 witnesses and also proved the documents marked exhibits 1 to 3. The defence examined 5 witnesses from its side but did not prove any document. 4. Upon going through the evidence on record, the trial court found that the same clearly revealed that the accused was running a saw mill adjacent to his house and that he had no license to run the same. The trial court further found that the accused had stored logs, sawn sizes, finished and semi-finished furniture made of forest produce without any valid license or permit for the same. Thus, the trial court found the accused guilty under section 14 of the Control Act read with section 4 of the said Act and Rule 21 read with Rules 4, 8, 10(h) and 14 of the O.T.T. Rules and convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinbefore. 5. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal challenging the judgment of the trial court on several grounds. In order to appreciate the grounds raised by the accused, the lower appellate court independently scanned the evidence on record but found no reason to take a different view than what was taken by the trial court. He also held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. As regards the contentions raised by the accused-appellant, the lower appellate court found the same not worthy of consideration. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was confirmed thereby. 6. Heard Mr. B.B. Routray, Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mishra, Leanard additional standing counsel for the state. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, as confirmed by the lower appellate court, Mr. Routray contends that the prosecution has not proved the basic ingredients of the alleged offences. It has not been proved with cogent evidence that the saw mill in question belonged to the petitioner. Further, the seizure of the so-called forest produce was made from the house adjacent to the house of the petitioner but not from his house. It is further contended that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were official witnesses, who gave statements parrot-like which should not have been believed by the trial court. 8. Per contra, Mr. Further, the seizure of the so-called forest produce was made from the house adjacent to the house of the petitioner but not from his house. It is further contended that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were official witnesses, who gave statements parrot-like which should not have been believed by the trial court. 8. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Mishra has argued that the judgment of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record which is clear, consistent and reliable. Only because the witnesses were official witnesses, does not necessarily mean that they were not worthy of reliance. It is also argued that the prosecution has clearly proved that the premises in question was just adjacent to the house of the petitioner and had it belonged to someone else and not the petitioner, he would have certainly said so. 9. Be it noted at the outset that this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction would ordinarily be slow to interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or such as no prudent man would arrive at. Keeping the above in mind, the evidence on record is examined. A reading of the impugned judgment of conviction reveals that as many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, most of whom were official witnesses. P.W.-13 is the Forest Officer, who had executed the search warrant issued against the accused and had also conducted the search in the saw mill premises. He clearly states about seizure of sawn sizes, other varieties of timber and saw dust. P.Ws.9 and 8 have also stated that the accused was running the saw mill at the place of seizure. P.Ws-1 and 2 are independent seizure witnesses, who have supported the version of the other witnesses. Nothing has been elicited from them in cross-examination to disbelieve their sworn testimony. Thus it is clearly established from the evidence on record that the petitioner was running a saw mill in the premises in question. There is no dispute that the petitioner could not produce any authority or license to run the saw mill, which is a violation of the provision under Section 4 of the Control Act punishable under Section 14 of the said Act. There is no dispute that the petitioner could not produce any authority or license to run the saw mill, which is a violation of the provision under Section 4 of the Control Act punishable under Section 14 of the said Act. It is also proved that the petitioner had stored logs of different varieties, sawn sizes, finished and semi-finished furniture made of forest produce without any valid license or permit. Huge quantity of such articles was seized from the premises. Again, the accused could not show any authority or permit for storing such articles in his premises. Therefore, the offence under Rule 21 of the O.T.T. rules is also clearly proved. To the above extend therefore, the finding of the trial court cannot be faulted with in any manner whatsoever. Coming to the defence evidence, it is seen that as many as 5 witnesses were examined who claimed to have given their furnitures for polishing and other works to the accused. Not a shred of paper was proved in this regard. It is therefore difficult to believe that such valuable furniture would be given to the petitioner without as much even a receipt. Therefore the evidence adduced by the defence has to be treated as self-serving and therefore not acceptable. 10. Coming to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner before this Court, it is borne out from the evidence on record that the premises in question was just adjacent to the house of the petitioner. Some of the articles were also found and seized from his house. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the clear evidence in this regard. In fact, there has been no suggestion to such effect during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore the above plea is nothing but an afterthought, which is not worthy of consideration. As has already been held hereinbefore, the witnesses to seizure have clearly testified regarding the place of seizure and there is absolutely no doubt in this regard. The argument that most of the witnesses being official witnesses, their version should not have been accepted is untenable in the eye of law. As has already been held hereinbefore, the witnesses to seizure have clearly testified regarding the place of seizure and there is absolutely no doubt in this regard. The argument that most of the witnesses being official witnesses, their version should not have been accepted is untenable in the eye of law. Law is well settled that merely because the person deposes in the capacity of an official witness does not necessarily mean that his version is untruthful more so when there is nothing on record to show that the said witness was in any manner inimically disposed towards the accused so as to falsely testify against him. There is also no cross-examination by the defence in this regard of the prosecution witnesses. 11. It is alternatively argued by Mr. Routray that the occurrence took place more than 22 years back. The petitioner is presently aged about 60 years and therefore, he should be released as per the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act instead of sending him to prison to serve the remaining part of a sentence. 12. Undoubtedly, the occurrence took place more than 22 years ago. The petitioner was aged about 38 years at the time which makes him 60 years at present. No criminal antecedents are reported against him and the occurrence in question appears to be his first offence. Therefore taking all the above facts into consideration, this Court is of the view that instead of sending him to prison to serve the remaining part of the sentence at this belated stage, ends of justice would be best served if he is released as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 13. It is thus observed that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court are valid enough to persuade this Court to interfere there with. However, as held hereinbefore, the sentence passed by the trial court needs modification. 14. In the result the revision is allowed in part. However, as held hereinbefore, the sentence passed by the trial court needs modification. 14. In the result the revision is allowed in part. The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court is hereby maintained but the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified to the extent that instead of serving the sentence, the petitioner shall be released as per provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 25th August 2022 for the above purpose. In the event of non-appearance of the petitioner on the date fixed, the sentence originally imposed by the trial court shall have to be undergone by him. 15. Before parting with the case this Court deems it proper to place on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri B. B. Routray, Amicus Curiae in disposal of the case. His professional fee is fixed at Rs. 10,000/- 16. The CRLREV is disposed of accordingly.