OUSEPH DEVASSI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by accused 1 and 2 in Calendar Case No. 1325/954 on the file of the stationary Second Class Magistrates Court at Alwaye. There were four other accused in the case. All the six of them were prosecuted for the offences punishable under clause (f) of S.27 of the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act (Act III of 19521 and under R.11 of the Timber Transit Rules framed under the Travancore Forest Act (Act II of 1068). On 1-8-1954 the Forest Depot Officer at Varapuzha noticed two bamboo rafts being rowed down the Periyar river by accused 3 to 6 and, on suspecting that those bamboos were being unauthorisedly removed from the reserve forest, the Depot Officer seized the bamboos fastened together in the two rafts. Accused 3 to 6 produced the passes Exts. C to C 10 before the Depot Officer to convince him that the bamboos were being transported on the authority of these passes. But the passes were found to be time-expired and hence the Depot Officer proceeded with the investigation of the case. In the course of such investigation, accused 1 and 2 produced Ext. D series of passes and contended that the bamboos in question belonged to them and were being transported under the authority of these passes. Accused 3 to 6 were employees under accused 1 and 2, entrusted with the work of transporting bamboos. The authorities of the Forest Department were not satisfied with the explanation offered by the accused and hence the prosecution was launched for the offences already mentioned against accused 1 to 6.

(2.) After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that accused 3 to 6 were only servants under accused 1 and 2 and were merely carrying out the work entrusted by their masters and that these four accused were not guilty of any of the offences mentioned in the charge. Accordingly, accused 3 to 6 were acquitted. The Trial Court further found that there is no evidence that the bamboos in question were being illegally removed from the reserve forest and that, therefore, the charge under S.27(f) of the Forest Act is not sustainable even as against accused 1 and 2. But these two accused were found to have acted in contravention of R.11 of the Timber Transit Rules passed under the Travancore Forest Act. On the strength of that finding, the Trial Court convicted accused 1 and 2 under S.35 of the Travancore Forest Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 days. The bamboos seized by the forest authorities were sold in auction and the sale price was directed to be disbursed to accused 1 and 2 They preferred an appeal to the Sessions court at Parur against the aforesaid conviction and sentence. But that court confirmed the Trial Courts findings and dismissed the appeal. Accused 1 and 2 have therefore come up in revision, challenging the legality of the conviction recorded against them under S.35 of the Travancore Forest Act.

(3.) The main point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the lower courts erred in invoking the aid of a repealed Act for the purpose of recording a conviction against them. They have also a further contention that they have not contravened R.11 of the Timber Transit Rules framed under the Travancore Forest Act of the year 1068. If the petitioners are to succeed on the first point urged by them, it may not be necessary to examine the second ground on its merits. The first ground may, therefore, he examined on the assumption that the petitioners had as a matter of fact contravened the provisions of R.11 of the Timber Transit Rules.