RAJKISHORE PRASAD AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 6.9.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Angul in 2 (b) C.C. Case No.105 of 2001 in taking cognizance of offence under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (hereafter "1980 Rules") which arises out of Offence Report No.4 of 2001-2002 submitted by the Forest Range Officer, Purunagarh Range, Angul Division, Angul.

(2.) It is the prosecution case that on 21.04.2001 Forest Range Officer, Purunagarh Range, Angul on getting information from his staffs, rushed to Karadagadia liquor Bhati premises, Angul and reached there at about 9.30 a.m. and he found that S.P., Angul with the police staff, Collector, Angul with Revenue staff and Excise personnels were present at the spot. In the liquor Bhati premises, some teak, sal and non-sal sizes were found which were accordingly seized as per the measurement. It is the further prosecution case that the petitioners were found present in the liquor Bhati and they disclosed that one Narayan Prasad is the owner of the liquor Bhati and they are the managers and they further stated that their owner had purchased the sal, teak and other wood from the Forest Department depot for the purpose of furnishing windows, doors etc. for his building. It further appears that since no T.T. permit and cash memos were produced by the petitioners in respect of those sizes of wood, those were seized and the offence report was prepared. It is the further prosecution case that subsequently, the owner of the liquor Bhati namely Narayan Prasad produced cash memos and the bills etc. issued by O.F.D.C. Ltd. in respect of the seized sizes and on verification, it was found that he had purchased timber from O.F.D.C. vide cash memos and sawn it in the corporation saw mill and he had also purchased sal sizes and sal dhima vide O.F.D.C. cash memos. On verification of the seized sizes as well as the cash memos produced by Narayan Prasad, it was found that there were excess of 26 pieces of misc. sizes and accordingly, offence report was prepared for violation under Rules 4 and 14 of the 1980 Rules punishable under Rule 21 of the said 1980 Rules and section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the documents available on record, it is Narayan Prasad who had purchased those seized sizes of wood from O.F.D.C. Ltd. and sawn it in the corporation saw mill for his house work and he has also produced cash memos before the Forest officials which were also seized. It is the further contention that if the said Narayan Prasad failed to produce cash memos in respect of some misc. sizes of wood then he was answerable for that and the petitioners who were the mangers of the liquor Bhati of Narayan Prasad in which the seized sizes were kept temporarily by the owner and were in no way connected with the seized sizes of wood, should not have been arrayed as accused.