STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KOTAPALLI MADHUSUDAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment and order dated 13/12/1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Roha in Summary Criminal Case No. 687 of 1991 whereby the respondents (original accused 1 and 2 respectively, hereinafter for convenience referred to as "a-1" and "a-2" respectively) were acquitted of the offences punishable under section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and under section 26 (g) (b) read with section 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidence of the complainant PW-6 Ankush Deshmukh, the Range Forest Officer is that he was serving as a Range Forest Officer at Roha. Village Khargaon comes in his jurisdiction. In Khargaon, Compartment No. 260, Old Coup No. 8, there is a quarry (for short, "the said quarry" ). A-1 got permission from the Central Government to extract stones from the said quarry on royalty basis for three years. The permission accorded by the Central Government came to an end in the month of March, 1990. Though directed by the Forest Department, A-1 did not hand over the said quarry to the Forest Department. According to PW-6 Ankush, on 26/4/1991, he, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mr. Balki and Round Officer Mr. Ghosalkar were taking round in the forest area of village Khargaon. At that time, A-2 was working in the said quarry. He asked A-2 whether they had permission to extract the stones from the said quarry. He stated that his employer A-1 has asked him and other labourers to work in the said quarry. PW-6 Ankush then called two panchas and prepared spot panchanama, which is at Ex-23. According to him, while preparing the panchanama, A-1 came there. He asked A-1 whether he has permission to extract the stones from the said quarry. According to him, A-1 stated that he has no such permission. According to him, A-1 signed the panchanama. He then seized the crushing machine, truck and crushed stones. According to him, A-1 agreed that he would not continue with the work and, therefore, he handed over the seized articles to him and took receipt from him. PW-6 Ankush has further stated that on 2/5/1991, A-1 repeated the same act. He seized the articles used by A-1 and registered offence against him being Crime No. 15 of 1991. Then on 3/5/1991, A-1 filed Civil Suit bearing R. C. S. No. 66 of 1991 against the Forest Department and obtained a status-quo order against the Forest Department. The Forest Department filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1991 in the District Court, Senior Division, Raigad at Alibag. The status-quo order granted by the trial court was vacated on 30/10/1991.

(3.) ACCORDING to PW-6 Ankush as per the direction of his superiors, he went to the same spot on 31/10/1991. He seized materials lying on the spot. He took measurement of digging done by A-1 from 4/5/1991 onwards. There was one truck standing at the spot bearing No. MRS 8986. There was a crushing machine and one diesel engine and there was one truck which was not in a running condition. He seized the trucks and other articles under a panchanama. On that day, he prepared three panchanamas. They are Ex-24, Ex-25 and Ex-26. Ex-24 is the spot panchanama. Ex-25 is the panchanama under which articles found on the spot and two trucks were seized. Ex-26 is the panchanama under which the truck bearing No. MRS 8986 was shifted to Forest Range Office, Roha for safety. He then filed a complaint against both the accused under sections 26 (g) (h) and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and under section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.