STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR GUJARMAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has come in appeal against the order dated 6/09/1996, passed by J. M. F. C. , Saoner, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under sections 26 and 33 of Indian Forest Act and section 3 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, which he was facing. The order in question was passed following the directions of the Apex Court in (Common cause A Registered Society v. Union of'indian and other)1, Writ Petition (C) No. 1128/1986 reported in 1996 (4) Bom. C. R. 519 : 1997 Bom. G. R. (Cri) 318 : a. I. R. 1996 S. C. 1619. The appeal has been filed under section 378 read with 482 of Cri. P. C. The appeal was called for hearing yesterday as also today. Though on both days, learned Advocate for the appellant was present, ho one appeared on behalf of the respondent. It may be mentioned here that the attendance of the Advocates in the Court in Final Hearing Criminal Matters is not at all satisfactory and at times the Court work cannot be transacted for want of Advocates. In spite of bringing this fact to the notice of the President of Bar, there has been no improvement. Accordingly, the appeal in question was heard in the absence of Advocate for the respondent.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant firstly submitted before me that the respondent was charged with the offence under sections 26 and 33 of the indian Forest Act and section 3 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and tried for the offences relating to the Acts dealing with the environment have been exempted in terms of para 4 of the judgment in Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of Indian and others (cited supra) from the principles laid down in l (a) to 2 (f) in the said judgment. Learned Advocate for the appellant also relied upon the Seven Judge Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in (P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka)2, reported in 2002 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C.)859 (C. B.) : 2002 (4) S. C. C. 578 and has drawn my attention specifically to paras 29 and 34 of the said judgment. It is also urged by him that for the delay in start of the trial, the prosecution was not in any way responsible and the trial remained pending mainly because of the respondent remained absent on the dates of hearing. In this respect, he has drawn my attention to the farad orders of the said case which are at pages 8 to 15 of the paper book.

(3.) HE has also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in (The State of Maharashtra v. Nandkishor Brijalal Shonchatra)3, Criminal Writ petition No. 135 of 2000, wherein it was held that Forest and Wild Life are integral part of environment and the Indian Forest Act deals with an environment and any offence committed under Indian Forest Act would be covered by the exception carved out by the Apex Court in para 4 of the judgment in Common cause A Registered, Society v. Union of Indian and others (cited supra ).