SITARAM JAGATRAMKA AGARWALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Singhbhum convicting the petitioners under Section 49 (c) of the Bihar Private Forests Act and sentencing the petitioner Sitaram Jagatramka Agarwala to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and the petitioner Lal Mohan Mahton to pay a fine Rs. 51/-; petitioner No. 1 is the master of petitioner No. 2.

(2.) It appears that there is a parcel of land -either within or near the boundary of forest known as Purnapani forest. On 26-6-1949, petitioner No. 2, under the orders of his master petitioner No. 1, was fixing pillars and getting trenches dug by coolies in the said parcel of land. According to the prosecution, this parcel of land falls within the boundary of Purnapani forest and the forest is a private protected forest of the Government. It is apparent that this forest, which was originally a private one, must have been taken over by the Government if at all under the Bihar Private Forests Act, namely, Bihar Act, IX of 1948. There are certain procedures laid down in the Act in order that a forest may be constituted into a private protected forest. Section 30 of the said Act requires that, on certain conditions having been fulfilled which need not be laid down here,

(3.) On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that as the fact was by implication admitted in the Courts below and further that the oral evidence given by the forest Beat Officer to that effect was not challenged, therefore that evidence amounts in law to the proof of the fact that the forest was a private forest. I am afraid that the oral evidence to that effect will not suffice to prove the factor essential for prosecution in the absence of the production either of the Gazette or a copy of the same, as observed in a number of cases decided by this Court. I may mention here in this connection the case decided by Rai J. in 'Lala Balram Lal v. The State', Cri Revn No 374 of 1951 disposed of on 2/7/1951 (A). It was also submitted on behalf of the State that in case it is necessary that the Gazette or a copy of the same be on the record, the same may be accepted at this stage in this Court. I think it is too late to do so because mere production of the Gazette will not be sufficient unless the boundary given therein is held to be covering the parcel of land wherein the trenches were dug. I think that, if the Gazette is brought on the record at this stage that will result in prejudice to the accused.