STATE Vs. SUREADRA SANGMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the two respondents by the Magistrate Shri W.U. Mulla.

(2.) THE respondents were charged under Section 28(1)(a) of the Indian Forest Act, for having made fresh clearing in Harishnagar Forest in Kalkalia village, P.S. Bishalgarh. District, Tripura on 14.3.1982. A report to that effect was made by the Patrol Officer and in the said report it was mentioned that tilla land, measuring about 6 teams, were cleared up by the respondents by cutting many prohibited trees and by setting fire to them for the purpose of jum cultivation. When the respondents were questioned under Section 242, Criminal Procedure Code, they admitted having made the clearing. Again, at the end of the prosecution case, when they were questioned under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code they admitted the clearing of the forest. But it would appear that their counsel raised a plea before the Magistrate that the prosecution had to prove that the forest concerned, where the clearing was made was a Reserved Forest, and that as in this case it was not shown that the forest was a Reserved Forest notified to be such under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, the respondents cannot be held guilty under Section 26(1)(a) of the Act. This argument raised for the respondents appears to have appealed to the Magistrate and he accepted the same and acquitted the respondents Against the said acquittal, this appeal has been filed by the State.

(3.) IT is a clear error of law on the part of the Magistrate. If he only had cared to read Section 26(1)(a) of the Indian Forest Act, he would have seen tint if any person makes any fresh clearing prohibited by Section 5 of the Indian Forest Act, he is liable to punishment under Section 26(1)(a) and that it is not necessary that the clearing should be in a Reserved Forest. Section 5 of the Indian Forest Act, provides 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 that behalf. It was pointed out to the Magistrate that in respect of the forest where the occurrence took place, a notification under Section 4 had been issued by the Tripura Administration. When once such a notification has been issued under Section 4, Section 5 would prohibit any fresh clearings in the said forest and any fresh clearings would amount to an offence under Section 26(1)(a).