A. P. Bhangale, J. - (1.)This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 31/07/2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katol in Summary Case no. 1547 of 1997 whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 26 (i) (d),(f), (g) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rules 3, 17, 23 and 25 of the Bombay Transit of Forest Produce (Vidarbha Region, Saurashtra & Kutch Areas) Rules 1960.
(2.)The facts, stated briefly, are as under : Amrutbhai Patel (Respondent no. 3 herein) has taken Dhavad Saw Mill, Katol on lease. Himmatbhai Patel (Respondent no. 4 herein) is a relative of Amrutbhai. Bhaurao Daulat Yedame (Respondent no.1 herein ) is their Diwanji. Deorao Kumbhare (Respondent no.2 herein), Vishwanath Yedame (Respondent no. 5 herein) and Harischandra Yedame (Respondent no. 6 herein) had loaded six logs in the Blue Colored Maroti Van No. Dl 2 CA 3972 on 09/09/1997. The Logs were kept hidden at Tandulwani in the field of one Gangadhar Somkuwar. It is alleged that the accused had cut the trees illicitly from the Government forest. After loading the timber logs in the Maroti Van, the van went to Dhawad Saw Mill, Katol and the Timber was unloaded there. It is case of the Prosecution that the confessional statements of accused Amrutbhai and Deorao were recorded which indicated that the accused were involved in illicit felling of the trees to get them converted in the Saw Mill. Confiscation proceedings under Section 61 A of the Forest Act started and the Authorized officer has passed an order to confiscate the Maroti Van and the Teak Timber. The said order was confirmed as the appeal challenging the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Six witnesses were examined to prove the case. The Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them.
(3.)It is submitted by Mr.M.P.Badar, learned Special Counsel for the Appellant that the learned Trial Judge erred to overlook the confessional Statements and other evidence on the record about illicit felling of the trees and transportation thereof to the Saw Mill as also the panchanama regarding seizure of the wood. It is argued that the presumption under Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not rebutted by the accused. He prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order.