STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. RAIMOHAN GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred under Section 417 Criminal P.C. is directed against the order of the 3rd class, Magistrate, Udaipur acquitting the accused of an offence punishable under Section 26(1)(a) of the Indian Forest Act.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 27 -6 -1967 at about 8 A. M. the accused Raimohan Ghosh was found clearing some portions in a Jungle in respect of which a notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act was issued. In support of the prosecution case. Sankar Bhowmik the patrolling officer and Bir Mohan Deb Barma a guard of the Forest Department are examined. The learned Magistrate, in view of the admissions of the two witnesses that the 'dao' with which the accused was clearing the jungle was not recovered and that the accused was not arrested, felt a doubt as to whether the accused was actually clearing the forest area and consequently acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt. Against that order this appeal is preferred

(3.) THE learned Magistrate gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him on the ground that if really the accused was found engaged in clearing the jungle. P. Ws. 1 & 2 the forest officials would have certainly arrested him and seized the 'dao' with which the accused was clearing the area. Section 52 of the Act provides for the seizure of any article or weapon used in committing a forest offence. No doubt it is in the discretion of the concerned forest official to seize or not to seize the implement used for committing the offence. But when P. W. 1 has chosen to collect and seized the shrubs that were cut he would have certainly seized the weapon also. Section 64 of the Act authorises a forest official to arrest without a warrant any person who is concerned in any, forest offences. But admittedly the accused was not arrested. It is on those two grounds the learned Magistrate felt a doubt as to whether the accused was in fact making fresh clearings in the area and that benefit of doubt was rightly given to the accused. That being so there are no substantial or compelling reasons for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal.