Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Nandkishore S/O Brijlal ... on 27 September, 2017
Bench: Swapna Joshi
1 Judg 270917 apeal 68.03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2003
The State of Maharashtra,
through Range Forest Officer, Kothari Range,
Tah. Ballarsha, District Chandrapur. .... Appellant.
-Versus-
Nandkishore Brijlal Sonchatra,
Occ.-Tendu Contractor,
R/o.-Norman School Road, Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh State), Bilaspur. .... Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.B. Bissa, Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant/State.
Mr. N.G. Moharir, Counsel for respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J.
September, 2017.
Dated : 27th
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the
judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur
in Summary Case No. 6506 of 1994 on 17-10-2002, whereby the learned trial
Judge had acquitted the appellant (hereinafter will be referred as 'the accused')
for the offence punishable under Section 26(1)(f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
2] I have heard Mr. N.G. Moharir, the learned Counsel for the
respondent and Mr. S.B. Bissa, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant/State. With their assistance, I have carefully gone through the record of
the prosecution case.
3] The facts in brief are as under :-
In the year 1994, PW-2-Namdeo was working as a Round Officer in
Kanhangaon beat (forest). The accused was working as a Contractor of
collecting Tendu leaves. PW-1-Deorao Madavi, the Forest Guard, gave
information to PW-2-Namdeo about cutting of Tendu leaves in compartment
2 Judg 270917 apeal 68.03.odt
no.18. Accordingly, PW-2 visited to that compartment on 22-05-1994 and
28-05-1994 respectively. PW-2-Namdeo noticed cutting of Tendu leaves in the
said compartment. He, therefore, prepared the panchanama of the same. On
22-05-1994, 75 trees were cut down, whereas 62 trees were cut down on
verification dated 28-05-1994, thus total 137 trees were cut down. He prepared
the panchanamas (Exhibits-20 and 21 respectively). PW-2-Namdeo, recorded
the statements of the witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that the
accused made confessional statement. PW-2 recorded the confessional
statement of accused (Exhibit-24). There was ultimate loss of Rs. 49,200/- for
75 cut trees and Rs.47,800/- for 62 cut trees. Further confessional statements of
the accused were recorded by him (Exhibits-28 and 29 respectively). After
completion of the investigation, PW-2 submitted the chargesheet in the Court of
learned C.J.M., Chandrapur. The learned trial Judge framed the particulars of
charge and after appreciation of the evidence and hearing both the sides, the
learned trial Judge acquitted the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
4] I have heard Mr. N.G. Moharir, the learned Counsel for the
respondent and Mr. S.B. Bissa, the learned APP for the appellant/State. I have
carefully gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
5] Mr. S.B. Bissa, the learned APP, vehemently argued that the
learned trial Judge has not considered the testimony of the witnesses in right
perspective and has passed illegal and perverse judgment and order, inasmuch
as the learned trial Judge has not considered the confessional statements of the
accused.
6] Mr. N.G. Moharir, the learned Counsel for the respondent
contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused, as the
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
7] In order to verify the rival contentions of both the sides, it would be
advantageous to go through the evidence led by the prosecution. The
prosecution has examined in all four witnesses. PW-1-Deorao is the Forest
Guard, PW-2-Namdeo is the Round Officer of Forest Department, PW-3-
3 Judg 270917 apeal 68.03.odt
Janardhan and PW-4-Nanaji are the panchas, who turned hostile.
8] As per the testimony of PW-1-Deorao and PW-2-Namdeo, they had
received the information of illegal cutting of Tendu trees in compartment no.18
of Kanhangaon beat and therefore, they visited the place of incident and they
found 75 cut trees in their first visit on 22-05-1994 and 62 trees in second
verification which was made by them on 28-05-1994. PW-2-Namdeo has
prepared the panchanamas (Exhibits-20 and 21 respectively). According to PW-
2, the accused was the Contractor of the said job of cutting trees and actual
work of plucking the leaves is not done by the Contractor by engaging the
labourers. The accused was responsible for such cutting of trees. Significantly,
there is no document on record to show that there was any writing executed
between accused and the Forest department in that regard, on the basis of
which, it can be said that the accused was responsible for cutting of trees by
means of labourers. PW-2 admitted that about 60 to 70 labourers were engaged
in cutting the leaves. However, he did not enquire from them about cutting the
Tendu trees. Thus, from the testimony of PW-2-Namdeo as well as PW-1-
Deorao, it is clear, that the actual work of plucking the leaves is not done by
the Contractor. However, it is done by his labourers. In these circumstances, it is
not clear, as to how the Contractor was personally liable for cutting of the Tendu
trees.
9] Significantly, PW-1-Deorao stated that he had obtained the
signatures of accused on all the documents, 2 to 3 days after recording of the
panchanama. PW-2-Namdeo was suggested about the procedure adopted by
the department of the Contractor while engaging the labourers for the collection
of Tendu leaves. PW-2 categorically admitted that as per Exhibit-29, it was
agreed between Forest Department and the accused that if he pays the amount
of fine agreed, the Forest Deportment could not initiate any proceedings against
the accused. In this regard, it is noticed that the documents (Exhibits-18 to 29)
are prepared by PW-2 and the contents therein are no doubt stated by him.
However, in view of the fact, that there are no independent witnesses examined
4 Judg 270917 apeal 68.03.odt
by the prosecution in that regard, much weightage cannot be given to those
documents. Moreover, Exhibits-24 and 28 are found to be the forms; undertaking
to pay a sum of money by way of compensation for any other offence other than
an offence specified in Section 62 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 with
regard to the payment of fine which a person is suspected to have committed.
From those forms, it cannot be said that it was the accused who had cut the
Tendu trees or he had admitted his guilt in that regard.
10] Admittedly, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that
the accused himself had cut the tress as per the allegations against him put
forward by the prosecution while framing the particulars of charge at Exhibit-14.
In view of the fact, that there is no evidence on record against the accused that
the accused himself cut the Tendu trees, it is held that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case. In view of the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Judge
has rightly disbelieved the evidence led by the prosecution and acquitted the
accused of the offence punishable under Section 26(1)(f) of the Indian Forest Act,
1927.
11] I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by
the learned trial Judge. It is well settled principle of law that in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction particularly in appeal against acquittal, it is not open to this
Court to substitute its own view with a view taken by the lower Court, unless the
view taken by the lower Court is illegal, perverse or against the principle of law.
12] There are no sufficient grounds made out by the appellant/State to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order. In these circumstances, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
