THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. SOIBAM LENIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. L.Gunindro, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.Kenajit, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2.12.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Cril. Misc.Appeal No.19 of 2012 by which the learned Sessions Judge held that 12 teak door panels seized by the authorities of the Forest Department cannot be termed as "timber" and hence, 'forest produce' as defined under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and accordingly, set aside the proceeding initiated by the Forest Department for the alleged violation of Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rule 33 of the Manipur Forest Rules, 1971.

(3.) A brief reference to the certain facts may be necessary to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.