ABDUL AZIZ Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Sections 224 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under each count by the first class magistrate, Udaipur and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. His appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed and he has come in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE case which was found proved against the petitioner was that on 26 -3 -60 the petitioner was detected by the Plantation Watcher, P.W. 2, peeling off the barn of a Sal tree In the Mathpusharini village within the Chandrapur Reserve Forest after he had cut down the tree and that when P.W. 2 tried to arrest him for the said forest offence, the petitioner gave a blow with a dao on P.W. 2's right hand causing injury and then ran away from the place.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge's statement that the offence was a non -bailable offence was wrong. The offence for which the petitioner was sought to be arrested by P.W. 2 was an offence under Section 33(1(a) of the Indian Forest Act. Section 64 of the said Act gave the power to any forest officer or police officer to arrest any person reasonably suspected to have been concerned in any forest offence punishable with imprisonment for one month or upwards and this can be done without a warrant. Hence, the offence under Section 33(1)(a) was a cognizable offence. But Section 65 of the said Act shows that any person arrested under Section 64 could be releases on his executing a bond to appear before a magistrate. Hence, it is clear that the offence was not a non -bailable offence. It follows that a private person cannot arrest under Section 59 Cr.P.C. for a forest offence.