STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. OINAM RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP assisted by Mrs. RK. Emily, learned Dy. GA on behalf of the State petitioners and Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel along with Ms. L. Ashapriya, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) These 4(four) Criminal Revision Petitions i.e. Cril. Rev. P. Nos. 17 of 2016, 18 of 2016, 19 of 2016 and 20 of 2016 have been filed under Ss. 401 and 482 of CrPC, 1973 by the State of Manipur, being aggrieved by common judgment and order dtd. 17/8/2016 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal in Cril. Appeal Case Nos. 2 of 2016, 3 of 2016, 4 of 2016 and 5 of 2016. By the impugned order dtd. 17/8/2016, the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal set aside the common order dtd. 13/5/2016 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Thoubal in Cril. Misc. Case No. 66 of 2016 [Ref: Cril (Complaint) Case no. 73 of 2016]. By the order dtd. 13/5/2016, the Ld. CJM, Thoubal rejected the claim of the respondents herein, who are the vehicle owners and directed the 4(four) vehicles involved in forest offence be confiscated under Sec. 452 of Cr PC, 1973 read with Ss. 54 and 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and vehicles be disposed of by auction sale and deposited as per law. Since the 4(four) vehicles are involved in the same offence, these 4(four) Criminal Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) On 6/4/2016 at about 11:00 am, the police personnel of Khongjom Police Station apprehended 4(four) drivers namely (1) Shri. Ningthoujam Manilal Singh (2) Shri. Khundrakpam Hemanta Singh (3) Shri. Thingbaijam Kumar Singh and (4) Shri. Angam Haokip along with four Tata Trucks bearing No. MNO6T/0741, MNO3T/1051, MNO5C/2523 and MN02A/6344, for illegal possession and transportation of 52 round logs of Khangra (Dipterocarpus tuberculatus) having volume of 51.31 cu. M. which is A-1 Class timber without any valid documents or permits. The four apprehended drivers along with the seized four Tata Trucks and Timber (Khangra) were handed over to the Forest Kakching Range Office. On 7/4/2016, DFO, Thoubal forwarded the four Accused Drivers along with report of the seizures of timber (Khangra) and four Tata Trucks before the Ld. CJM, Thoubal for trial under Ss. 41(2), 52(1) of the Indian Forest Act read with Rules 33 (a) and 38 of the Manipur Forest Rules, 1971 and that the real owner of the timber, so claimed to be Premkumar Singh be traced out and punished as per law of the land. On the same day, i.e., on 7/4/2016, the Ld. CJM, Thoubal took cognizance of the offence U/s 33(a) and 38 of the Manipur Forest Rules, 1971 against the four Accused drivers and convicted them on their respective plea of guilty and sentenced each of them till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.500.00. After conclusion of the trial, disposal of the seized timber and the four Tata Trucks was taken up by the Ld. CJM, Thoubal under Cril. Misc. Case No. 66 of 2016. The Ld. CJM, Thoubal vide its order dtd. 13/5/2015 gave a finding that the persons claiming to be owner of the seized Tata Trucks respectively could not prove that their vehicles were used in committing the forest offence without their knowledge and connivance. Hence, it was ordered that the four Tata Trucks be confiscated to the Govt. of Manipur. Vide order dtd. 29/4/2016 in Cril. Misc. Case no. 66 of 2016 [Ref: Cril. (Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2016], Ld. CJM, Thoubal confiscated the 52 round logs of Khangra (timber) and directed the same to be disposed of by auction sale and proceeds be deposited as per law. Thereafter, by another order dtd. 13/5/2026 in Cril. Misc. Case No. 66 of 2016 [Ref: Cril. (Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2016] (which was impugned before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Thoubal), Ld. CJM, Thoubal rejected the application of the 4(four) owners of the truck (who are respondents herein) and directed the vehicles to be confiscated under Sec. 452 of CrPC read with Ss. 54 and 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and directed to dispose of the same by way of auction sale and proceeds be deposited as per law. While rejecting the application of the four truck owners, Ld. CJM, Thoubal heavily relied on the identical statement of the four drivers of the truck recorded by RFO, Kakching to the fact that the owners of the truck informed the drivers to go to Koijam Maring Village near Kongjom for loading of timbers. The four owners of the truck preferred four similar appeals being Cril. Appeal No. 2 of 2016 by Mr. Oinam Ranjit Singh, Cril. Appeal No. 3 of 2016 by Mr. Thiyam Amumacha Meitei, Cril. Appeal No. 4 of 2016 by Mr. Suank-hogin Ngaite and Cril. Appeal No. 5 of 2016 by Mr. Oinam Gunamani Singh against the common order dtd. 13/5/2016 passed by the Ld. CJM, Thoubal in Cril. Misc. Case No. 66 of 2016 [Ref: Cril. (Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2016]. The common grounds in the appeals are :- (i) no opportunity has been given to the appellants (who are respondents herein) to present their respective cases, (ii) the Court below error in law as well as facts in making the findings based on statement given by the four Accused (Drivers), (iii) the Court below has failed to peruse the relevant records of the case, (iv) the evidence relied upon is not at all sufficient, adequate and reliable, (v) the four appellants were not forwarded for trial in the case and (vi) the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is liable to be set aside.