STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. HARADHAN CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has put under challenge the judgment dated 18-12-2000 passed by a Single Judge of this Court in F.A. No. 104 of 1994. By the said judgment impugned, the appeal by the State of Tripura and others, the appellants herein, has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in M.S. No. 02 of 1985 has been affirmed.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to the present proceeding may be noticed thus:- The plaintiff-respondent Haradhan Chowdhury instituted the Money Suit No. 02 of 1985 against the State of Tripura and other officials of the Forest Department seeking a decree of damage for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on the ground of malicious prosecution launched against him by the appellants herein. He claims to be a reputed timber merchant of the area known as Sonaichheri under Belonia Sub-Division. In the month of November, 1980, he applied for permission to extract from his jote land 9 karai trees and one gamai tree. He also applied for similar permission to fell 40 karai trees and 2 gamai trees purchased by him from the jote lands of Laxman Chandra Debnath, Jatindra Das, Subi Kumar Tripura, Atul Chandra Pal, Khetra Mohan Pal, Danu Tripura and Basi Das of Uttar Sonaichheri. The third appellant herein in response to the prayer of the said respondent directed him to produce parcha and naksa as per his prayer for extraction of trees from the jote lands which was accordingly done. Thereafter, the trees were given hammer marks by the Forest Officials. The plaintiff-respondent in anticipation of the approval started to fell down the said trees in the later part, of December, 1980 which continued upto January, 1981. The plaintiff- respondent was taken by surprise by his sudden arrest on 9-2-81 by the Forest Officials and institution of two cases against him, one under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and the other under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Though he was released on bail on the following day, he had to go through the perils of wrongful detention and harassment of a long drawn proceeding causing mental and physical anguish. As on the same event, two cases were instituted, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Belonia stayed the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 12 of 1981 under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and proceeded with G.R. Case No.59 of 1981 under Section 379, IPC. During the course of trial, the Forest Officials could produce no tangible and credible document to prove the charge under Section 379, IPC and in the result, the plaintiff-respondent was discharged. Same was the fate of C.R. Case No. 12 of 1981 which also came to be closed discharging the plaintiff-respondent. But in the mean time, the 52 valuable trees worth of Rs. 12,500/- was sold in auction by the said Forest Officials for a meagre amount of Rs. 2010 though the said trees were seized from the jote lands of the plaintiff-respondent and other persons noted above. After the disposal of the criminal cases where the Forest department failed to produce any prima facie evidence that the trees felled by the said plaintiff-respondent were on the khas lands covered by reserved or protected forest, the instant suit for damages was instituted.

(3.) The official respondents of the Forest Department contested the suit contending, inter alia, that the said respondent applied for 25 numbers of karai and 15 numbers of gamai trees to be extracted from the khas land of North Sonaichheri and his prayer dated 20-11-80 was rejected on 25-11-80. The said respondent also made another prayer for extracting 30 numbers of karai trees and 10 numbers of gamai trees on 20-11-80 which also met the same fate on the same date. The Ratanpur Beat Officer had arranged hammer marking of 54 trees standing on the khas land and thereafter those were put to auction on 31-12-80. One Kishore Mohan Baidya and one Haran Chandra Das offered the highest rate which was accepted. But thereafter, the plaintiff- respondent started felling those trees without permission from the Forest Officials which had given rise to the two proceedings under Section 379, IPC and under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The said action was taken bona fide by the Forest Officials in discharge of their officials duties and, therefore, irrespective of the outcome of the said proceedings for reasons whatsoever, the Forest Officials could not be fastened with any liability on ground of malicious prosecution.