STATE OF GOA Vs. DEVANAND SHRIKANT NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 3/07/1991, it is alleged that three accused persons trespassed into government reserve forest at Durgini, dharbandors within the limits of Ponda police station and cut 12 logs of sheesham wood worth Rs. 5,000. 00. The range forest officers detected 12 logs of sheesham wood lying in the reserve forest and a Maruti van bearing registration no. GA-01-P-7676 parked at a distance of few meters there-from. Two of the accused persons were seated in the Maruti van. The range forest officers tried to apprehend the accused persons who tried to flee away in the Maruti van. However, the Maruti van was intercepted and seized by the forest officers. A report of theft was lodged with the police. Offences under sections 447, 379 read with 34 IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 were registered. The accused persons having been found on investigation by the police, to have committed the alleged offences, they were charge-sheeted and produced before the court of judicial magistrate, first class at Sanguem, Goa. The charge-sheet filed by the police - reported the seizure of 12 logs of sheesham wood and Maruti van as also one axe and one 'quita' - the tools used for cutting the trees. While the axe and 'quita' were physically produced in the court, the seizure of 12 logs of wood and Maruti van was only reported to the learned magistrate as these two articles were in the custody of forest conservator at Collem. On trial, the learned magistrate found the offences under sections 379, 447 read with 34 IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 having been not made out and therefore acquitted the accused persons of the offences charged. The learned magistrate also directed the Maruti van to be released to accused no. 1 or to its owner within a period of 60 days from the date of the judgment. During the course of his judgment, the learned magistrate held that the two range forest officers examined as Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 6 before him, had acted in high-handed manner and their act in seizing the Maruti van and prosecuting the accused persons could not be said to be bona fide. The learned magistrate, in the operative part of judgment, also directed - "issue show cause notice to Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 6 as to why action should not be taken against them".

(2.) Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused respondents, the direction of the trial court releasing the Maruti van and the direction to issue show cause notice to Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 6, the state government preferred an appeal before the High court of Bombay, Panaji, Goa. By the impugned order dated 3/04/1998, the high Court has refused to interfere with the order of the acquittal made by the trial court. The state government of Goa has filed this appeal by special leave.

(3.) So far as the acquittal of the accused - respondents for the offences charged is concerned, having gone through the judgment of the trial court as also the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are satisfied that no result can be found with the acquittal of the accused respondents. However, the more serious challenge made by the learned counsel for the state, during the course of submissions, is to the two directions made by the trial court, specially that part of the judgment, which directs the release of the seized vehicle to accused no. 1 or the owner thereof.