DHAMMAPIYA (THAIU) MOG Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who has been alleged of committing the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, has challenged the authority of the Judicial Magistrate First Class to try the offences punishable under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. That apart, an additional plea has been raised by the petitioner that the trees those were extracted were standing on a jote (private) land and, therefore, there cannot be any forest-offence.

(3.) Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in terms of Section 67 of the Indian Forest Act, power to try offences summarily lies with the District Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government. But, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class are not empowered by Section 67 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 to try the offence summarily under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.