Back
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Kashinath Ghoshal – Appellant
Versus
Mukul Mallick – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.12.1998 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan in G.R. Case No. 362 of 1998, acquitting the accused/respondent of the offence under Section 33(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
2. The G.R. Case No. 362 of 1998 was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant/appellant against the accused/respondent under Section 33(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, for the violation of Rule 11 of the West Bengal Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1959 for illegally removing and keeping of 13 pieces of Sishu logs which were forest produces.
3. The prosecution case as made out in the complaint, inter alia, is as follows:-
During execution of a search warrant on 10.03.1998 around 12:30 P.M. with the help of other staff, he searched the khamar bari of the accused and recovered 13 pieces of sishu logs hidden in the premises of the said accused. He seized the same under a seizure list in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter 30 days’ notice was given to the accused to produce valid document in support of the said logs. As the reply of the accused was unsat
The petitioner failed to establish that his vehicle was used without his knowledge, as required by Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, demonstrating insufficient proof of diligence agains....
The main legal point established is that the petitioners committed forest offences by cutting trees from Government land in excess of the permission granted and failed to challenge the confiscation o....
It is the duty of the prosecution and especially of I.O. of the case to satisfy the conscience of the Court by negating the chances of suspicion arising in the facts of case.
Confiscation under the Orissa Forest Act requires proof of a forest offence and adherence to procedural safeguards, failure of which invalidates the confiscation order.
Transporting timber without a valid permit violates the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and Timber Transit Rules.
Transit of forest-produce beyond pass validity constitutes forest-offence mandating confiscation of produce/vehicle; strict compliance essential as deterrent to deforestation, liberally construed for....
Point of law: Re-appreciation of evidence - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - In any case it is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court does not extend to re-apprec....
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in their acquittal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
