GANDHARAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the order of learned Sessions Judge Udhampur dated 7.7.2000 whereby an appeal preferred against judgment and sentence recorded by CJM Udhampur on 27.3.1995, has been dismissed.

(2.) The Criminal Revision was filed on 19th July 2000. The petitioners after persuading the Court to suspend sentence, stayed away from the proceedings and ignored to pursue the matter. The Revision Petition was dismissed in default of appearance of the petitioners on 26.08.2003. Thereafter, the petition was restored to its original number on 1.9.2003. The petitioners continued their game of hide and seek and avoided to assist the Court to take the matter to its logical end. On 15.07.2006 petitioner No. 2 was reported to have passed away and his name was directed to be deleted vide order dated 27.09.2003 from the array of the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 was impressed upon time and again to contact his counsel and ensure that the arguments were addressed. The petitioner No. 1 on 29.8.2006 was reminded that no further adjournments would be allowed, to argue the matter. The petitioner No. 1ignorring all directions, made in this behalf and also his duty to take steps for effective proceedings in the matter, has stayed away from the proceedings. It appears that the petitioner No. 1 has developed vested interest in delaying the matter so that irrespective of the merits of the Revision petition, the petitioner No. 1 is in a position to avoid the fall out of the judgment recording conviction against the petitioner No. 1. The court is thus left with two options (1) to adjourn the matter and thus help the petitioner No. 1 to succeed in his tactics and (2) to deal with and dispose of the matter on its merits. The option of dismissing the revision petition in default though followed on 26.08.2003, is not permissible under law. In my opinion, the matter that is pending for last one decade should not be allowed to linger on endlessly and the court should not fall in the trap laid by the petitioner and allow the petition that is waiting disposal for about a decade, to clog the system. So viewed, the matter needs to be dealt on its merits. But first a bit of the background.

(3.) The staff posted at Forest Check Post Domail Udhampur in the wee hours of 24.10.1989 intercepted truck No. 803-JKQ carrying fruit boxes and on routine inspection of the truck, found it to carry 111 planks of devdar, concealed beneath the fruit boxes. The petitioner No. 1 driver of the truck in question and petitioner No. 2 his accomplice also traveling in the truck, could not account for and justify the possession of the timber or produce any documents authorizing transportation of the timber. The timber was suspected by the vigilant forest guards to be illicit forest produce and the seizure reported to SHO P/S Udhampur, where upon a case FIR No. 370 of 1989 was registered. The investigation was entrusted to Shri Salman Sidiqui the then Sub Inspector P/S Udhampur. After usual investigation the charge sheet regarding offence punishable under Section 379 read with 6/39 The J&K Forest Act, 1987 svt. (for short as Forest Act) was presented in the court of CJM Udhampur. The learned CJM on 4.12.1991 held, the charge sheet and the material submitted therewith to disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 15 and 16 Forest Act against the petitioners and accordingly charged the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge. The prosecution examined the witnesses listed in the charge sheet. The incriminatory material appearing in the prosecution witness was put to the petitioners to enable them to explain such circumstances. The petitioner adduced evidence in their defense. Learned CJM after going through charge sheet and the evidence brought on the file, held the prosecution to have brought home guilt to the petitioners and accordingly convicted the petitioners of the offenses punishable under Section 15/16 Forest Act and sentenced the petitioners to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The petitioners in default of payment of fine, were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.