Puttu Lal Verma vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 6640 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 997 of 2019
 

 
Revisionist :- Puttu Lal Verma
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Rao
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J.

This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2019, passed by the Sessions Judge/District Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 105/2018 (Muneshwar Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & another). A further prayer has also been made for restoration of summoning order dated 14.08.2014, passed by ACJM, Court No. 12, Barabanki in Complaint Case No. 983 of 2003 (present Complaint No. 1090 of 2014) Puttu Lal Verma Vs. Muneshwar Prasad, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist had moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2 under Section 379 IPC on the assertion that opposite party no.2 being an employee of the Forest Department has illegally stolen the woods of the revisionist which was planted by the revisionist on the land of forest department which was given to him through a "Sanad" for planting the trees and for enjoying the outcome of the same. The said application under Section 156 (3) was treated as complaint and after recording the evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no.2 was summoned to face trial under Section 379 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate dated 14.08.2014 the opposite party no.2 had lodged a Revision No. 105 of 2018 before Sessions Judge, Barabanki.

The learned Sessions Judge, Barabanki after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the trial court has not properly applied its mind to the facts and legal position. Accordingly, the said revision was allowed and the order passed by the trial court was set aside. The trial court was directed to give opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate order.

The grievance of the revisionist is that protection of Sections 73 and 74 of Indian Forest Act is not available to the opposite party no.2 because of the fact that the applicant has not done his action in good faith. It is also stated that from the record it is evident that the woods belonging to the revisionist have wrongly been taken by opposite party no.2. In this regard learned A.G.A. has stated that it is yet to be determined as to whether the said trees were infact planted on the Plot No. 643, which has been mentioned in the Sanad of the revisionist. It is only to be determined by the trial court as to whether the action of the revisionist in removing the woods was infact in good faith or not.

Accordingly, this revision is finally disposed of with a direction to the trial court that while considering the assertions, the trial court shall categorically give its finding as to whether the action of the opposite party no.2 was done by him in good faith or not.

Disposed of.

Order Date :- 1.8.2019

ML/-