STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ARJUN TABADU MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application by the State Government challenges the order dated 16th October, 1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1987.

(2.) Range Forest Officer, Shahada, Dhule Forest Division, Dhule, filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahada, for an offence under section 26(1)(d) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, against 49 persons. In the complaint, he mentioned that the accused persons have permitted their cattle numbering in 260 to graze in the reserved forest and have caused damage to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Due to the said trespass and grazing of the cattle, the grass in the reserved forest is consumed and the land is deteriorated. Young saplings in the specially cultivated nursery have been destroyed. Even the branches of the trees have been consumed by the cattle. The whole process has affected adversely the environment and the forest. The complaint further mentions that on 4th October, 1987, the accused were found grazing their cattle in the reserved forest. They were chased, they left the cattle and went away and, therefore, all the cattle were seized. The complaint further mentions that the said cattle should be forfeited under section 55 of the Indian Forest Act.

(3.) It appears that the learned Magistrate asked the accused whether they have received the copies of the complaint and whether they have understood the particulars of the offence explained to them and whether they plead guilty to the same. All the accused answered in the affirmative to all the questions. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahada, observed that the accused have pleaded guilty. He found them guilty under section 26(1)(d) of the Indian Forest Act as sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. The learned Magistrate further ordered that the cattle seized in the case are confiscated to the State and the complainant is given charge therefore in order to dispose of the forfeited cattle as per the law.