BHAJAN SINGH AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of all the three Criminal Revisions titled above. All these revisions arise out of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2003 delivered by II FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2002. In the said appeal, the judgment and order the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima convicting all the revisionists for the offence of Section 411 IPC was sustained. By the said judgment, all the revisionists were sentenced, for the offence of Section 411 IPC, for an year's imprisonment, besides fine of Rs. 1,000/ - upon each revisionists. In default of fine, each one of them ordered to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a month.

(2.) THE brief facts, sans, unnecessary details for the purpose of adjudicating these revisions are that in the intervening night of 11/12.6.1992, all these accused persons, namely, Rajendra Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bhajan Singh, Jitendra Singh, Jagat Singh and Sajjan Singh were caught red handed with three bullock carts having loaded with forest wood logs. The Pradhan of nearby village was called by the police officials, who identified the wood logs belonging to that of forest. So, a complaint was filed by the forest department against all these revisionists for the offence of Section 379, 411 IPC and Section 26 of the Forest Act. After trial, the Magistrate Court found that as the revisionists were not apprehended at the time of cutting or stealing the above wood, so they were absolved of the offence of Section 379 IPC as well as Section 26 of the Forest Act. But as regards Section 411 IPC, all the revisionists were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.

(3.) THE fact remains that the wood was forest wood. Needless to mention that under Section 69 of the Forest Act, there is a presumption that such wood logs which are being transported through the forest can be presumed to be owned by the Government. More so, the revisionists did not claim their ownership over the wood in question. So, these revisions are bereft of any merit and are liable to be dismissed.