MONORANJAN DAS Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Monoranjan Das was hauled up under clause (a) of section 26(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, on the charge that on 5.1.1968 he happened to clear 3 kanis of land from within the reserved forest called Chandrapur without any permit and thereby occasioned a loss of Rs. 500/ - to the forest Department. The defence set up by Monoranjan Das was that the fuel wood found in his possession by the Forest Patrol Officer, Shri Sankar Bhowmick, had been collected by him from the reserved forest on the basis of permit issued to him and that the complainant unnecessarily wanted to harass him with a view to extort illegal gratification from him. The trial Court found the charge established and on negativing the defence plea it convicted Monoranjan Das under Section 26(1) of the Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 25/ - or, in default seven days' rigorous imprisonment. Having felt aggrieved Monoranjan Das took the matter in revision to the Court of Sessions Judge, Tripura. The latter found substance in the contention advanced before him for the first time on behalf of the convict that in the absence of proof that notifications under Sections 4 and 20 had been issued and that proclamation in terms of Section 6 of the Act had been made, the conviction could not be sustained. He has, therefore, made a reference to this Court recommending that the conviction and sentence of Monoranjan Das be quashed.

(2.) SHRI . H.C. Nath, the learned Government Advocate, challenged the soundness of the recommendation made by the Sessions Judge. He submitted that for the purpose of proving the charge punishable by clause (a) of Section 26(1) of the Act, only a notification under Section 20 and/or proclamation prescribed by Section 6 do not constitute essential factors. Shri N.L. Choudhury, representing the petitioner, however, vehemently urged that to sustain a charge under clause (a) of Section 26(1) it is indispensable that after the notification under Section 4 is made the proclamation under Section 6 should be effected and that should be followed by a notification under Section 20.

(3.) TO appreciate the respective contentions of the parties' counsel, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 gives power to the State Government to constitute any forest -land or waste -land of the nature mentioned therein a reserved forest in the manner provided in the succeeding provisions. The relevant part of Section 4 enjoins that whenever it is decided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest. Section 5 provides inter alia that after the issue of a notification under Section 4, no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in the behalf. The next Section 6 state that when a notification has been issued under Section 4, the Forest Settlement -Officer shall publish in the local vernacular in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the concerned land, a proclamation specifying the situation and limits of the proposed forest, explaining the consequences which will ensue on the reservation of such forest, and fixing a period of not less than three months to enable the interested persons to put in their claims respecting that land. In Sections 7 to 16 procedure is prescribed for adjudging the merits of the claims made and dealing with cognate matters. Section 17 provides for appeals against orders made under Sections 11, 12, 15 and 16, while Sections 18 and 19 relate to how the appeal shall be filed and who can represent the appellants before the authority concerned. When all the disputes raised by the claimants have been settled at the stage of appeal. Section 20 enacts that the State Government shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette, specifying definitely, according to boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, and declaring the same to be reserved form a date fixed by the notification. Sections 21 to 25 have no relevancy to the case in hand and so I skip over them. It is Section 26 which prescribes the forest offences. Since the fate of the present reference hangs by the interpretation to be placed on clause (a) of Sub -Section (1) of that Section, I deem it necessary to reproduce that sub -Section in extenso. It runs as under : -