SAFIQUE ALAM @ SAFIQUE ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 14. 06. 2013, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner -VI, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 290/2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29. 11. 2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in G. R. No. 3888/2005 (T. R. No. 146/12), whereby the petitioners have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 42 of Forest Act and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine the petitioners were directed for further SI for 15 days each, has been affirmed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15. 12. 05 at 10. 30 a. m the O/c Lapung, along with Arjun Tiwary, Constable Adulunt Lakra, Constable Md. Rafique, Constable Budheshwar Oraon, Police Veerendra Kujur, Police Yadu Oraon and driver police Radhe Mohan Singh, was on patrolling, when he found a vehicle Max Jeep no. JH 01J-2989 carrying wood from the forest Deogaon and on suspicion he stopped the vehicle, but the driver started the vehicle at once and tried to flee away. They chased and caught the vehicle and found 80 pieces of Sakhua wood loaded on the vehicle. Each piece of the wood was 6' in height & 3'' and 5'' in width. The apprehended persons told their names as Raiman Tirky & Safik Aalam. When the documents were demanded, both the persons could not produce any document and they stated that they were bringing the wood from forest. Thereafter, seizure list was prepared before two independent witnesses namely Munna Minz and Mangra Oraon and duly signed by them and copy served to the accused persons.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that seized goods were not marked. Further, the prosecution witness P. W. 1 has admitted that he did not try to identify that whose van was that in which the seized goods was loaded. He further submits that P. W. 2 has admitted that he has sent the seized articles in the police station. Further P. W. 3, who is the seizure list witness has admitted that seizure list was not prepared before him and he signed on the plain paper. He further submits that the learned trial court while acquitting the petitioners under Section 414 IPC has opined that the prosecution has failed to prove that the wood or van was stolen property and the accused persons assisted in concealing or dispossessing the same but at the same time the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 42 of Indian Forest Act. As such, the impugned orders passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court deserves to be set aside.