RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN F.I.R. was lodged against four named accused at the instance of Rameshwar Prasad (present petitioner) for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. A charge -sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. and Section 26 Indian Forest Act, 1927. Criminal trial against the accused persons is pending adjudication before Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. In the meanwhile, an application for release of vehicle was moved by it's owner before the trial court, who dismissed such application. The owner of the vehicle moved a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who, in turn, after hearing both the parties, allowed the criminal revision, and released the vehicle in favour of it's owner subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.

(2.) THE owner of timber moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate for it's release in his favour. Learned trial court, vide order dated 18.06.2013, dismissed such an application holding that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to release such timber in view of Section 52D of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Uttarakhand Amendment 2002). Aggrieved against the same, the owner of the timber moved criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who after considering the issue, dismissed the revision vide order dated 17.05.2014. Being aggrieved against the same, present criminal writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner.

(3.) SHESHAM is placed at Sl. No. 34 of Schedule -I of the aforesaid Act. Schedule -I deals with timber trees. Shesham trees were standing in the holding of the petitioner when theft was committed. It is provided under Section 5 of the 1976 Act that the competent authority may, on the application of any person entitled to fell standing trees or to cut, remove or otherwise dispose of a fallen tree, after making such inquiry, at it thinks fit, grant permission to him to do so. Such permission shall not be refused, if the tree constitutes danger to person or property. In certain contingencies, it is provided that such permission shall not be required for the felling of any tree with a view to appropriating the wood or leaves thereof for bonafide use, purposes of fuel, fodder, agricultural implements or other domestic use. In a nutshell, the petitioner was entitled to fell standing trees or to cut or remove the same with the permission of the competent authority. This fact is under no dispute that the trees, timber of which was stolen by the thieves, belonged to the petitioner's holding.