PRATAP KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN spite of giving ample opportunity, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not turn up and so the instant revision petition has been fixed for judgment after hearing learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) BOTH the petitioners, namely, Pratap Kumar Yadav, Arun Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 33 of the Forest Act and each of them has been directed to undergo S.I. for six months vide judgment dated 23 -01 -2002 passed by Sri Ramashray, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No.274C3 of 1998 which found affirmed vide judgment dated 13.06.2003 by Additional Sessions Judge, IXth, Munger in Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2002 / 6 of 2002.

(3.) FROM the lower court, it is evident that altogether seven PWs have been examined on behalf of prosecution to support its case along with exhibits of documents. The grounds so taken by the petitioners in memo of revision, evidences along with the successive judgments have minutely been gone through. After giving parallel scrutiny thereof, the successive judgments are not at all found fit for concurrence because of the fact that the learned successive courts below failed to identify inherent defect persisting in the prosecution case with regard to any sort of connection in between the seizure of 65 logs, saw mill with theses two petitioners who were not at all present at the time of conduction of raid. Apart from this, PW -6 is the Bhujangi Paswan, Chowkidar of the locality who had disclosed that during conduction of raid, the police officials have also arrived who after having a short stay left the place. He had further deposed that the saw mill was not in a running condition.