SITARAM RANGAPPA KAUSHIK Vs. UKUNDA BATTIKA JADHAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both Criminal Appeal 222/2000 and Criminal Revision Application 31/2000 arise from the judgment and order dated 13-10-1999 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Appeal 32/1995, they are heard and decided together.

(2.) In Criminal Revision Application 31/2000 challenge is to the acquittal of the respondent Ukanda Jadhao of offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code (" IPC " for short) recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Appeal 32/1995 decided on 13-10-1999. Criminal Appeal 31/2000 challenges the direction 6 of the judgment and order which gives the custody of the seized property (teak wood logs) to Ukanda Battika Jadhao. By the appellate judgment, the conviction of Ukanda Battika Jadhao for offence punishable under Sections 379 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC recorded by the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwah in Criminal Case 129/1989 is set aside.

(3.) Relevant facts shorn of unnecessary details are thus : Sitaram and his two brothers Ramakant and Ramdas are the joint owners of agricultural land bearing survey 9 admeasuring 9.95 hectares situated in village Lasina. Sitaram separately owns and possesses 2 hectares of land out of the said survey 9 having 150 teak trees. The accused Ukanda Jadhao and one Madhukar Nagtode cut the teak trees without the consent of Sitaram Kaushik or his brothers and removed the trees causing loss of Rs.50,000/-. This came to light when Naib-Tahsildar, Yavatmal issued notice to Sitaram for having cut trees illegally. Sitaram lodged police report (Exhibit 47) on 14-3-1989, offence under Section 379 of the IPC was registered against both the accused and charge-sheet filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwah. Charge was framed under Sections 379 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence is that the grandmother of accused Ukanda Jadhao purchased survey 9 in the year 1958 and since then he is in possession of the said land. The defence further is that accused Ukanda himself planted the trees and after cutting then sold them to accused 2 Madhukar.