State Of Mah.Thr.Round ... vs Tryabak Madhaorao Ingle & 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 4499 Bom

205-J-Cri.A-378-04                                                                            1/6


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.378 OF 2004

The State of Maharashtra, 
Through Round Officer, 
Mobile Squad, Yavatmal                                            ... Appellant
-vs-
1.  Trymbak Madhaorao Ingle
     Nehru Nagar, Ghatanji, 
     District Yavatmal. 
2.  Namdeo Ramaji Mokhase
     C/o Gajanan Saw Mill, 
     Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji, 
     District Yavatmal 
3.  Ishwarlal Laxmandas Drona
     R/o Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji, 
     District Yavatmal                                            ... Respondents. 

Shri S. A. Ashirgade, APP for appellant/State. 
Ms Ashwini Athalye, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 
Shri N.B. Bargat, Advocate with Shri A. D. Ramteke, Advocate for respondent
No.3. 

                            CORAM  :  MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, J. 

ARUGMENTS WERE HEARD ON : JULY 12, 2017 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 14, 2017

Judgment :

Present appeal is against the judgment of acquittal in Regular

Criminal Case No.240 of 1998 decided by learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Ghatanji. The State has filed the present appeal on the ground that

accused persons committed offence punishable under Sections 26(f) and 42

of Indian Forest Act and also Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and proved

by prosecution. Learned trial Court not appreciated evidence properly and

205-J-Cri.A-378-04 2/6

wrongly acquitted respondents.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27/12/1994 at about 9

am, the Range Forest Officer mobile squad, Yavatmal came to Gajanan Saw

Mill, Ghatanji which belong to accused No.3 and found that accused No.1

has illegally cut down teak trees from the forest and taken it to Gajanan Saw

Mill. It was also found that fresh wood logs were lying at Gajanan Saw Mill

without any hammer mark. On interrogation, accused No.2 told that teak

wood belong to accused No.1 who was present at the spot. RFO Kavitkar

and U. R. Meshram of mobile squad seized the teak wood/timber wood and

prepared panchanama. They went to the house of accused No.1

at Nehru Nagar, Ghatanji and found 175 illegal timber measuring about

1.1682 cubic meter valued Rs.17,523/-. Those timbers were kept in the

house of accused No.1 without any hammer mark.

3. Accused persons were prosecuted by the Forest Department.

Learned JMFC, Ghatanji framed charge at Exhibit-85 for the offence

punishable under Sections 26(f) and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section

379 of the Indian Penal Code. After recording evidence and hearing

prosecution and defence, learned JMFC, Ghatanji acquitted all accused.

205-J-Cri.A-378-04 3/6

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Ashirgade pointed out

to me evidence on record. Learned APP vehemently argued that PW-1

Shivkantha stated in his evidence that some wood was seized at Gajanan Saw

Mill. These logs of wood were belonging to accused No.1. He proved

panchanama Exhibits-93 and 94. PW-2 Kailash has stated that mobile squad

of Forest Department prepared panchanama, Exhibit-102 at the house of

accused No.1. Accused did not show any documents. PW-4 Gajanan stated

that RFO Kavitkar has seized timber from the house of accused No.1.

5. Learned APP has submitted that evidence adduced by the Forest

Department is sufficient to hold that accused persons have committed

offence. Learned trial Court wrongly not relied upon the same and wrongly

acquitted the accused. At last, learned APP Shri Ashirgade prayed to allow

the appeal and convict the accused/respondents.

6. Heard learned counsel Shri Bargat for accused No.3. He has

strongly supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel submitted that

RFO Kavitkar wrongly seized the timber belonging to accused No.1. Accused

No.1 produced all the material documents at the time of the raid but RFO

Kavitkar did not consider the same. The impugned judgment is perfectly

legal and correct, therefore appeal is liable to be dismissed.

205-J-Cri.A-378-04 4/6

7. Perused the evidence. PW Nos.1 and 2 are the pancha witnesses

who were working in the Forest Department. Naturally they have to support

the department. PW-4 Gajanan Warkde has stated that at the time of raid at

Gajanan Saw Mill and at the house of accused No.1 he found logs of teak

wood. RFO Kavitkar has seized the teak wood. PW-6 Shankar has stated

that when he arrested some persons while cutting trees in Gat No.660 at

Mowada beet and seized wood from them, both the persons told that they

sell the teak wood to accused Nos.1 and 4. They also stated to PW-6 that as

per the direction of PW-1 and 4, they cut teak wood and sell them. It is

pertinent to note that the persons who have committed theft were not made

the accused.

8. Accused No.1 is a carpenter by profession doing the business of

furniture from the teak wood. He regularly used to purchase teak wood

and used to cut it at Gajanan Saw Mill. Accused No.1 examined himself and

proved various documents. He has proved documents vide Exhibits-149,

151, 154 and 155. All these documents show that accused No.1 purchased

the logs of wood and taken for cutting those logs at Gajanan Saw Mill, he

has also produced bills dated 21/04/1992, 09/10/1993, 21/11/1994,

04/11/1994 and 21/01/1994 in respect of purchase of wood. All these

documents show that accused No.1 legally purchased the logs of woods for

the purpose of his furniture business. There is no evidence to show that he

205-J-Cri.A-378-04 5/6

has committed any theft by cutting the wood from the forest.

9. Offence punishable under Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 is

not proved by the prosecution. Section 26 reads as under :

26. Acts prohibited in such forests :

Any person who fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree or strips

off the bank or leaves from, or otherwise damages, the same.

Section 42 speaks of penalty for breach of rules made under section

41 as under :

The (State Government) may by such rules prescribe as

penalties for the contravention thereof imprisonment for a term

which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to five

hundred rupees, or both.

10. Admittedly accused persons were not found cutting any trees in

the forest. Moreover, there is no any notification about the reserve forest.

Section 47 of the said Act is in respect of transit pass. Accused No.1 has

produced all the material documents including transit pass before the trial

Court. As per the contention of accused No.1, he had shown all the

documents to PW-4 but he did not consider the same and wrongly

prosecuted him.

205-J-Cri.A-378-04 6/6

11. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to

convict the accused. On the other hand, evidence adduced by accused No.1

shows that he is a carpenter by profession. His main business is of making

furniture. As per his evidence and documents produced by him, he has

purchased logs of wood. He was having valid transit pass. Therefore there

is no evidence to show that any of the accused committed offence charged

for the offence under Sections 26(f), 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section

379 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

guilt of the accused. Hence the learned trial Court rightly came to the

conclusion and acquitted all the accused. There is no perversity or infirmity

in the impugned judgment. Therefore appeal is liable to be dismissed. Bail

bonds of the accused/respondents are cancelled. Record and proceedings be

sent back to the trial Court.

JUDGE

Asmita