KUTUBUDDIN MIAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.06.1999 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1999 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, in C.F. Case No. 192 of 1994 corresponding to T.R. No. 158 of 1999 has been confirmed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 08.08.1994 at 6:00 A.M., Gyan Prakash Tiwary (P.W.-1) and Arun Kumar Dubey (P.W.-3), the forest guards, along with task force found few shemal' trees cut in Kutti reserve forest. On enquiry, they came to learn that the logs of shemal' were kept in the "Bari" (vacant land in front of the house) of accused-Kutubuddin Mian of village Bhusahi where after they reached there and seized 15 pieces of shemal wood. The said shemal logs were seized as per the seizure list (Ext.-1) and were given in Jimmanama to co-villager Kayamuddin. On information given to the higher authority, the offence was inquired into and Narad Dubey (P.W.-2) submitted the prosecution report. On the basis of the prosecution report, cognizance was taken under Sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The accused faced trial for the said charge and evidence was led whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Daltonganj, Palamau found the accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 8 months, which has been upheld by the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) Mr. Anurag kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court and the appellate court have committed error by not appreciating the fact that no independent witnesses have supported the cutting of the shemal tree by this petitioner; that the seizure list witnesses have not been examined; that co-villager, Kyamuddin to whom the said seized logs were given on Jimmanama has also not been examined; that P.Ws.-1 and 4 are formal witnesses, P.Ws.- 2 and 3 are highly interested as they are the forest officials and no independent witnesses have supported the allegation. It has further been submitted that no notification has been brought on record to show that the said plot no. 127 falls within the protected forest area. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Revision No. 60 of 2004. It has been argued that in the absence of any clinching evidence, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge and the petitioner should be acquitted of the charge.