Chattisgarh High Court
Taufiq Aalam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 February, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 283 of 2016
Digitally
signed by 1 - Taufiq Aalam S/o Sahood Aalam Aged About 21 Years Caste Muslim R/o
ANJANI
KUMAR
ALLENA Chikhlakasa P.S. Dalli Rajhara District Durg Chhattisgarh
Date:
2025.02.20
2 - Arun Kumar S/o Chaganlal Halba Aged About 17 Years R/o Piperkhar Presently
10:07:47
+0530 R/o Balak Adivasi Chatravas Chikhalakasa District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Applicants/Revisioners
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O. Forest Range Tekadhodha Forest Range
Dalli Rajhara, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
For Applicants/Revisioners : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Ratan Nidhi Pusty, Government Advocate.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order On Board
18/02/2025
Heard.
1. The applicants have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.03.2016 passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, Dist. Balod in Criminal Appeal
No.2000099/13 rejecting the appeal while affirming the judgment dated 14.01.2011
passed in Criminal Case No.273/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Rajhara, Dist. Durg C.G., whereby the applicants were convicted under Section
33(1)(d)(p)(t) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, the 'Forest Act') and 379 of
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 6-6 months and to undergo RI for 01-01 year and in default of fine
amount, to undergo RI for one month on each count, while directing to run
sentences concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of
09.02.2007, the applicants along with other co-accused persons were found cutting
and separated the teakwood by using saw and axe etc in the forest near village
Tekhdhodha and thereby violated provisions of Forest Act and subsequently, they
were caught while cutting, separating and stealing the timber. A complaint was
lodged by Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest), Dallirajhara before the J.M.F.C. Balod
against the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants abjured the charge and pleaded
non-guilty.
3. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,
convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this
judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal,
however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.03.2016, dismissed the
appeal upholding the judgment of the JMFC. Hence, this revision.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the submits that he does not challenge the
conviction of the applicant, but challenging the finding of sentence part, which,
according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicants remained in
jail for 21 days, i.e., from 10.03.2016 to 31.03.2016, they have no criminal
antecedents and are facing the lis since February, 2007 i.e. for more than 18 years.
Lastly, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. Therefore, it is prayed by
counsel for the applicants that the jail sentence awarded to applicants may be
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported
the impugned judgment.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
7. Considering the statements of P.W.6 T.R.Dehor, Forest Guard, P.W.1
Brijmohan Dhruv, Deputy Ranger and P.W.2 R.K. Kuldeep, Deputy Forest Ranger
supported by the evidence of P.W.4 Pratap Singh Thakur, Forest Guard and other
evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the
finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as well as by the Appellate Court,
being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I
hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicants.
8. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and further considering the fact that the applicants remained in jail for 21 days,
have no criminal antecedents and are facing the lis since February, 2007 i.e. for
more than 18 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while
upholding the conviction imposed upon applicants, the jail sentence awarded to
them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine
amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate
Court for the aforesaid offence and that of direction to run sentences concurrently
shall remain intact
9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicants
under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period
already undergone by them.
10. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds
shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of
Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
