Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) BY Court Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11th February 2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1994, dismissing the appeal filed against the Judgment dated 23rd August 1994, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, in C/3 Case No. 52 of 1990, whereby, the petitioners were found guilty and were convicted for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each.
(2.) FROM the offence report, it appears that the petitioners were apprehended in the night of 1.10.1990 at 11.00 P.M., near Hatgamharia, from a truck which was found to be loaded with wood. The forest official demanded the transit permit for wood, which was produced, but it is alleged that the descriptions of the wood loaded on the truck were not in accordance with the transit permit. It is also alleged that the transit permit had already expired. With these two allegations, the offence report was submitted for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The seizure list was prepared, which shows that the same was prepared on 02.10.1990. The prosecution report was also submitted in the instant case and ultimately, the petitioners were put to trial. In course of trial, six prosecution witnesses were examined by the police, out of whom, P.W. 1 Rameshwar Bandia is the Forest Guard and P.W. 6 Latan Jha is the Assistant Conservator of Forest, who had seized the wood, have supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses, P.W. 2 to P.W. 5 were only tendered by the prosecution. Both these witnesses have stated that the wood were seized by P.W. 6 Lalan Jha and the truck was brought to Chaibasa Range office, where the seizure list was prepared. The transit permit, offence report, seizure list and the other documents have been proved by P.W. 6 Lalan Jha. On the basis of the evidence on record, the petitioners were found guilty for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and they were convicted and sentenced for the same. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has raised two points in course of his submissions. The first submission of the learned counsel is that though it is alleged that the transit permit had already expired, but the transit permit, which has been proved as Ext -1 in the Court below, clearly shows that the transit permit was valid from 9.00 P.M. of 1.10.1990 to 10.00 A.M. of 2.10.1990. The offence report, proved as Ext -4 clearly shows that the truck was apprehended by the Forest Officials on 1.10.1990 at 11.00 P.M. in the night, and as such, it cannot be said that the transit permit had already expired. It is secondly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even though the seizure list is said to be prepared and it has been proved as Ext -3, but it clearly shows that there is no signature of any independent witness on the said seizure list and it bears the signatures of only the forest officials, bearing the date 2.10.1990. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out from the evidence of P.W. 1 Rameshwar Bandia as also from the evidence of P.W. 6 Lalan Jha, that the said seizure list was prepared not at the place of apprehension of the truck, rather it was prepared at Chaibasa Range office on the next day, still no independent was called. It is also pointed out from the evidence of P.W. 1 Rameshwar Bandia, that he has clearly stated that no independent witness was called at the time of preparation of the seizure list. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the said seizure list is only a manufactured document with oblique purpose, and absolutely illegal and the same cannot be taken into consideration for finding the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.;