STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NAVNEET KUMAR
LAWS(HPH)-1997-6-34
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on June 10,1997

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
NAVNEET KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)The order of the Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan is wholly unsatisfactory in this matter. The appeal before the Sessions Judge under Section 59(2) of the Indian Forest Act was filed by the respondent herein. It is brought to my notice by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the respondent had written a letter dated 9 -2 -1993 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Division Nahan in response to letter No. 10012/Nahan dated 1 -2 -1993, which was a show cause notice addressed to him. In that letter, the respondent has categorically stated that the ownership and possession of the vehicle in question was not that of the respondent, but it was of the purchaser from him Shri Som Parkash from the date of purchase having been effected vide IKRARNAMA dated 12 -11 -1992. A copy of the IKRARNAMA was also sent along with the said letter. In the next paragraph, the respondent has categorically stated This is wrong to say that the applicant is owner of this vehicle."
(2.)In view of that statement, the appeal filed by the respondent before the Sessions Judge may not be maintainable, but that aspect of the matter has not been considered at all by the Sessions Judge though it is stated that a reply was filed by the State Government before the Sessions Judge drawing his attention to the said letter of the respondent.
(3.)Secondly, the view taken by the Sessions Judge on the provisions contained in Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act is erroneous. This Court has recently considered the provisions of Section 69 and laid down the law relating to the presumption under that section in Criminal Revision No. 137 of 1994 Gurmail Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, by its judgment dated 8 -5 -1997.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.