CHANDRAM PD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE conviction of all the petitioners after the order of the appellate Court stands under Section 33 (1)(c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Central Act 16 of 1927), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". After modification by the appellate Court, petitioners 1 and 2 (Chandrama Pd. Mishra and Soda Lohar) have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each, and petitioners 3 to 22 (remaining others) have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each.

(2.) TWO points have been urged in support of this application; (1) that the prosecution has not proved, according to law, the issue of the notifications under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act and that the Collector got the notification issued under Section 30 affixed in the manner provided in Section 31 of the Act; hence the conviction of the petitioners is bad, and (2) that, in any view of the matter, the prosecution case on the evidence, and even according to the findings of the appellate Court, has not been proved against the petitioners, as it has not been shown that they have in any manner acted contrary to the prohibition under Section 30 by breaking up or clearing for cultivation or any other purpose any land in any protected forest.

(3.) UNDER Section 29 of the Act, a notification has to-be issued to declare that the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act are applicable to any forest-land or waste-land which is not included in a reserved forest, but which is property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of when the Government is entitled. Section 30 provides: 30. The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, - X X X X (c)prohibit, from a date fixed as aforesaid, the quarrying of stone, or the burning of lime or charcoal, or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing procees, or removal of, any forest-produce in any such forest, and the breaking up for clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land In any such forest. Section 31 reads thus: 31. The Collector shall cause a translation into the local vernacular of every notification issued under Section 30 to be affixed in a conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the forest comprised in the notification. What appears from the evidence in the case is that copies of the two notifications issued under Section 29 and 30 were produced in the trial Court but they were not exhibited; although there appears to be some note in the margin of these copies that the originals of these copies were marked exhibits, but those endorsements do not bear the signatures of the Magistrate nor any exhibit number. It does not appear from the record that the originals were produced and marked exhibits, nor does it appear that the printed copies of the official gazette in which the two notifications are said to have been published were produced before the trial Court for its inspection. There is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to show that the Collector caused a translation into the local vernacular of the notification in question issued under Section 30 of the Act and got it affixed in a conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the forest comprised in the notification. On the other hand, when P.W. 2, the Range Officer, was asked about this specifically in cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance. There does not appear to be any evidence nor is there any finding in the judgments of the Courts below that the petitioners had any knowledge of the notifications Issued under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, especially of the latter. In view of all these, relying upon a decision of Sahai, J. in Janu Khan v. State and an unreported decision of Ramratna Singh, J. in Government Appeal No. 53 of 1960, D/- 12-1-1962, I hold that the petitioner's conviction is bad and must be set aside.