CHINTAMAN WANGNUJI KORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit for compensation caused on account of his property valued at Rs.74,550/- having decayed while in the custody of the defendants has filed this Second Appeal as the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by him and the appellate Court has confirmed that judgment.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1979 he had purchased some teakwood from the Forest Department as well as some villagers. The teakwood was thereafter stored in his house. On 13th July, 1991, the Range Forest Officer took a search of the plaintiff's house and seized all the teakwood along with instruments that were used for preparing wooden furniture. The plaintiff along with two others was prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under Section 26 (f) of the Indian Forest Act , 1927 [for short, "the said Act"]. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by order dated 7 th September, 1996 discharged the plaintiff, but directed seizure of the confiscated teakwood. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the order of seizure filed a Revision Application and the learned Sessions Judge on 1st August, 1997 allowed that Revision Application and directed the seized teakwood to be returned to the plaintiff. After receiving the certified copies, the plaintiff demanded the said teakwood from the defendant no.3. On 3rd April, 1998, the plaintiff went to the forest depot for receiving back the said teakwood. He, however, found that the teakwood was decayed and had become useless. The plaintiff, therefore, refused to receive back the teakwood. He, however, received back the instruments used for preparing the furniture. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a notice on 29 th September, 1999 and demanded an amount of Rs.87,050/- towards compensation. As this notice was not complied, the plaintiff filed a suit for seeking compensation.

(3.) was taken that though the plaintiff was offered the seized teakwood, he had refused to receive back the same. The teakwood was kept in a proper and safe custody and it was denied that the same had lost its value. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit was liable to be dismissed.