THE STATE Vs. BASANTA KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 4 by the Magistrate, 3rd Class, Dharmanagar in Criminal Case No. 85 of I960, of the offences Under Sections 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

(2.) THE case against them was that they were -detected extracting firewood illicitly from protected forest on 13 -1 -60 by one Shri N. N. Dey, Range -Officer, Dharmanagar and that on being challenged they could not produce any permit for sucte -collection of firewood. Though the case was registered on 5 -4 -60, it is seen that all the respondents appeared before the Magistrate only on 25 -10 -61. Then the prosecution asked for time to produce their evidence and it was posted to 17 -11 -61. On 17 -11 -61, again 3 of the respondents did not appear and the 4th respondent was absent on the -ground of illness and hence it was posted to 20 -12 -61, on which date all of them appeared and the -Masistrat posted the case to 15il -62, for the -examination of Prosecution witnesses as a last chance. I am unable to understand why it should have been as last chance, when all the 4 accused -persons had appeared before the Magistrate only on 20 -12 -61. When the case was taken up on -15 -1 -62, the Forest Officer, conducting the prosecution prayed for further time. It would also appear -that the S. D. F. O. (N), wrote a letter to the Magistrate with a copy to the S. D. O. Dharmanagar, for favour of information and doing the needful, stating that the Range Officer, Shri N. N. Dey, who was the reporting Officer had gone to Assam -for training and would not be available in Tripura till the 2nd week of March, and that the case may therefore be adjourned till 3rd week of March, 1962.

(3.) IT was no doubt highly wrong on the part of the S. D. F. O. (N), to have written a letter to the Court with a copy to the S. D. O., Dharmanagar for information and doing the needful, for getting an adjournment in a case before the Court. If any adjournment is required by any party in a criminal case in a Criminal Court, the prayer for adjournment should be made in open Court by the . person appearing for the party or by a petition filed in Court, through such person. If it is a Government case and the Government wants adjournment, the Prosecutor must apply to Court for such adjournment or a responsible Officer, in charge of the case on behalf of the Government, must file a petition in Court through the Prosecutor . The S. D. F. O. should never have written a letter direct to the Court, it was again wrong to have sent the letter with a copy to the S. D. O., Dharmanagar, for information and doing the needful. The Magistrate may be subordinate to the S. D. O.. Dharmanagar. But the S. D. O. can never interfere in the matter of adjournment in a Court sub ordinate to the S. D. O.