STATE Vs. CHINNARAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT is Accused in C.C.No 555 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur, North Arcot District. For cutting 33 pellets of Sandalwood weighing 25 kgs (on 20.7.1994 at 5.30 a.m. in Singarapettai Reserve Forest worth Rs.5,575, the respondent/ accused was convicted under Sec.21(d), (e) and (f), of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.The respondent/ accused admitted the offence. On such admission of plea of guilt, the accused was ordered to be released under Secs.4(1) and 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Under Sec.5(1)(b) of the Act, the accused was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.700.

(2.) AGGRIEVED over releasing of the accused invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, the State has come forward with this appeal. The facts are not disputed. On 20.7.1994, when P.Ws.1 and 2 and other Forest Officers were on duty, keeping watch in Singarapettai Reserve Forest, the accused was found to be carrying sandalwood. When being questioned and searched, the accused was found to be in possession of head load of 33 pellets of sandalwood and he admitted cutting of the trees. For the commission of the offence under Sec.21(d), (e), (f), of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

(3.) IN his elaborate arguments, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon a number of decisions in support of his contention that there is no bar for invoking the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in forest cases. The learned counsel has inter alia raised the following contentions (i)Under Sec.11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, appeal shall lie only to the Court of session; when under Sec.374, Crl.P.C hierarchy of appellate forums are provided, the appeal filed in the High Court in contravention to Sec.11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act and the appeal is not maintainable; (ii)Not-withstanding the minimum sentence of imprisonment prescribed by the Legislature in Tamil Nadu Forest Act, there is no reason for not invoking the Probation of Offenders Act unless specifically barred; (iii)Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, under Sec.20(AA), where there is specific bar for extending the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act under Sec.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When there is no such specific bar in Tamil Nadu Forest Act, there is no bar for extending the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act; and, (iv)INstances of Etti Gounder v. The Forest Range Officer, Namakkal 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 68 and Andiappan v. The State by the Forest Range Officer, Burgur 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 325, where this Court has invoked the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the offence under Tamil Nadu Forest Act.