SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Pat) 83

PATNA HIGH COURT
Ahmad, J.
Parhan Mahto
Versus
Divisional Forest Officer
Criminal Revision No. 418 of 1951 ;
Decided On : JULY 18, 1951

A private forest is constituted a private protected forest by the publication of a notification in the official gazette specifying definitely the limits of the forest.

Headnote:

BIHAR PRIVATE FORESTS ACT - SEC. 49 - CONVICTION FOR CUTTING WOOD IN PRIVATE PROTECTED FOREST - NOTIFICATION CONSTITUTING FOREST AS PROTECTED FOREST NOT PRODUCED - CONVICTION BAD IN LAW.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted under Sec. 49 of the Bihar Private Forests Act for cutting wood in a private protected forest. The prosecution alleged that the Pokharia forest had been constituted a private protected forest under the provisions of the Act, and that the petitioner was detected cutting wood in the forest without a permit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence on the record to support the fact that Pokharia forest was a private protected forest. The only evidence on the point was the oral evidence of a forest guard who had served notices under Sections 14, 21 and 29 of the Act in the village adjacent to the forest, but no copy of the notification published in the gazette or the gazette itself was placed on the record.

Issues: Whether the Pokharia forest was a private protected forest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that, under the Bihar Private Forests Act, a private forest is constituted a private protected forest by the publication of a notification in the official gazette specifying definitely the limits of the forest. In the absence of such a notification, the forest cannot be deemed to be a private protected forest, and the provisions imposing penalty on persons for contravening the provisions of the Act cannot come into play.

Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner.

Judgment

Ahmad, J.

1. This application in revision is directed against an order convicting the petitioner for having committed an offence under Sec. 49, Bihar Private Forests Act. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

2. The case for the prosecution, briefly stated, is that the private forest of Pokharia has been constituted a private protected forest under the provisions of the Bihar Private Forests Act, 1947 (IX of 1948). On 22nd September, 1949, the petitioner, along with seven others, was detected by one Jugeshwar Singh, who was patrolling in the jungle, cutting wood. Babu Radha Krishna Ram, Beat Officer, on information came to the spot, and asked the petitioner to show his permit, but he could not show it. The Beat Officer tried to seize the wood; but he was resisted. He, therefore, sent information to the police station through the forest guard, and he himself remained with the petitioner there. The forest guard returned with two constables. The wood was seized in a village called Dhabia, and kept in the custody of one Dhanuki Singh. The Beat Officer wrote down a seizure report (exhibit 2). He also wrote a report about the offence (exhibit 4). The necessary sanction having been obtained, the petitioner was prosecuted under Sec. 49 of the said Act.

3. The petitioner has denied the charge. His case is that he has been maliciously implicated in the case, as he refused to pay bribe to the prosecution witness No. 1 which he wanted to extort from the petitioner.

4. The prosecution has examined four witnesses, P.W. 1, Radha Krishna Ram, is the Beat Officer who acted on the information of the forest guard, Jugeshwar Singh. P.W. 2 is Gaya Singh constable who was requisitioned from the police station Ichak by P.W. 1 to help him in seizing the wood. P.W. 3, Murlidhar Prasad, is the forest guard who has proved the publication of notice under Sections 14, 21 and 29 of the Bihar Private Forests Act, 1947. P.W. 4, Jugeshwar Singh, is the forest guard who detected the petitioner cutting wood in the jungle. The petitioner examined two witnesses in support of his defence.

5. The Court of appeal has accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the defence version.

6. Mr. L.K. Chaudhury, learned advocate for the petitioner, has contended that there is no evidence on the record in support of the fact that Pokharia forest is a private protected forest and as such the conviction passed against the petitioner is not maintainable in law. Sec.3, Clause (10) of the Bihar Private Forests Act reads:

" Private protected forest means a forest specified in a notification issued under Sec.30 or the proviso thereto;."

Sec.30 of the Act provides that, when certain events have occurred which need not be mentioned here:

"the Provincial Government shall publish a notification in the official Gazette specifying definitely according to boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be constituted a private protected forest, and declaring the same to be a private protected forest from a date fixed by the notification, and from the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a private protected forest."

So under the Act it is ultimately the publication of a notification in the official gazette specifying definitely, according to the boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest, which converts a private forest into a private protected forest. In the absence of the publication of the notification in the official gazette as contemplated by Sec.30 with regard to any particular private forest, it cannot be deemed to be a private protected forest. The only evidence on the point of publication of the notification required under the provisions of the Act is the oral evidence of P.W. 3, Murlidhar Prasad. He deposed in examination-in-chief:

"I know Pokharia Reserve Jungle. I had served notices there under Sections 14, 21 and 29 of Bihar Private Forests Act on 23rd Dec













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top