RAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sec. 14 read with Sec. 4 of the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 (in short "Control Act, 1991") and under Rule 21 read with Rules 4, 8, 10(h) and 14 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (in short "O.T.T. Rules, 1980") as per judgment passed on 13/2/2004 by Learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada in 2(b)CC No.6 of 2000 and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default, to undergo further S.I. for one month for the offence under Sec. 14 read with Sec. 4 of the Control Act,1991 and S.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00, in default, to undergo further S.I. for one month for the offence under Rule 21 read with Ss. 4, 8, 10(h) and 14 the O.T.T. Rules with all such sentences being directed to run concurrently. The said judgment was confirmed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2004 as per judgment passed on 11/10/2006.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated is that on 23/3/2000, the Forester of Khariar Road and staff of Khariar Forest Division conducted a search at the carpentry unit workshop and the saw mill premises of the accused-petitioner. At the time of such search and seizure an Executive Magistrate was present. It was found that the saw mill was functioning inside the carpentry workshop and that there were finished and semi-finished wooden furniture in the premises as also in the adjacent house of the accused. It was further found that the accused was running the saw mill without valid license and had also stored forest produce such as logs of Sishu, Saguan, Gamhari without any valid permit. As such, the logs were seized and offence report was drawn up and the case was inquired into. Upon completion of such enquiry final prosecution report was submitted against the accused under the aforementioned Sec. and rules.

(3.) Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 13 witnesses and also proved the documents marked exhibits 1 to 3. The defence examined 5 witnesses from its side but did not prove any document.