JANU KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the four petitioners have been convicted under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act (XVI of 1927), and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner No. 1 and two others, who have not filed any application for revision, have been convicted under Section 42 of the same Act read with Transit Rules 2 and 5 (vi), and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Petitioner No. 1 has been further convicted under Section 353 of the Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The price of the sal rolas in question, which were seized from the possession of petitioner No. 1 and two others, has been ordered to be forfeited.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, on the 2nd October, 1956, a forest guard named Jamuna Singh (P. W. 1) saw petitioners Janu Khan, Manan Khan and Halo Khan stripping off the bark from sal rolas (logs of sal wood), which had been cut, and petitioner Akram Khan loading those rolas on a truck bearing Registered No. B. R. L. 898. Jamuna Singh attempted to seize the rolas and tangis; but petitioner Janu Khan abused him, and ran to assault him with an axe, whereupon he fled away. Jamuna gave a written report (exhibit 1) to the Beat Officer. Subsequently, at about 11 p. m., the Beat Officer found petitioner Janu Khan and two others, who were the driver and the cleaner of the truck, taking 114 logs of sal wood on that truck at a railway crossing and they had no permit for transit. The Beat Officer seized the truck with the loaded sal rolas, and pruudced the driver, the cleaner and petitioner Janu Khan before the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 3rd October, 1956. In due course, the petitioners and the other two were put upon their trial, and I have already mentioned the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioners.

(3.) The first point which Mr. Ghosal has as taken on behalf of the petitioners is that their conviction under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is bad. The petitioners were charged for having contravened the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 33, which read: