JETHU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who were prosecuted under S.37 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 but were found guilty of contravention of R. 4 of the Orissa Timber and Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ' T.T. Rules, 1967' and were sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for one month more and the conviction having been confirmed in appeal but the sentence having been modified to only fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo S.I. for one month, have preferred this revision.

(2.) The facts on which the petitioners faced prosecution are that on 3-7-82 the concerned Forester received information of illegal felling of 28 Bija logs and one Dhanra log in the Bacluan Tikira (P.R.F.) and communicated the information to the Forest Range Officer, Kanika keeping watch on the logs. On 7-7-82 the Forest Guard having ascertained that the petitioners had gone in a truck to transport the logs from the forest, waited for the truck along with his staff. The truck came at around midnight loaded with 16 Bija logs and one Dhanra log and was seized as per the seizure list Ext. 1/4 and kept in the Zima of the owner of the truck Gouranga Mohanty, the petitioner No.3. The owner offered to compound the offence and executed a bond to that effect but however he having failed to pay the compensation, prosecution report was submitted which culminated in the trial. The petitioners in defence adopted the plea that the truck was going to Hemgir Forest to bring chips and due to previous enmity the Forester, Kuber Chandra Naik (P.W.9) had foisted a false case against them. Petitioner No. 2 also examined himself as a defence witness in the case.

(3.) Prosecution case was sought to be established by the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 3 who were local witnesses and P.Ws. 4 to 9 who were departmental witnesses. The trial Court as well as the appellate court came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced of the offence alleged against the petitioners to be true and hence convicted the petitioners.