IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove ownership and legality of possession of forest produce; failure to do so results in acquittal.

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 unsatisfactory to the Divisional Forest Officer, Burdwan, he lodged the complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 33(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act.

4. On 12.08.1998, the accused/respondent was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he pleaded not guilty to the accusation read over and explained to him and he claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses and certain documents were exhibited as Exhibits-1 to 4 whereas no defence witness was in support of the defence case.

6. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows:-

i. The Trial Court had failed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper stride and this had resulted in serious prejudice to the appellant and also miscarriage of justice.

ii. The findings of the Trial Court were not at all germane to the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution because the Trial Court had generalized the evidence on record without coming to scan the evidence of the PWs individually and this had resulted in vitiation of the judgment under appeal.

iii. The Trial Court had although referred to the factum of examination of 4 PWs but it had failed to discuss the evidence of all those witnesses individually which was a must and this had vitiated the impugned judgment of the Court below.

iv. The Trial Court had erred in not holding that there was no material evidence to prove that the seized logs belonged to the accused.

v. The prosecution having established its case by leading cogent evidence, it could not be said that the prosecution had failed in this regard and accordingly the Trial Court had gone wrong in this aspect.

vi. Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 having defined Forest Produces, the onus lied on the defence to prove his illicit possession of the Forest Produces in question and the Trial Court having totally failed to consider this material legal aspect of the case, the impugned order of acquittal had been vitiated.

vii. The prosecution having proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the Trial Court had gone wrong in acquitting the accused and this had resulted in perversity of the impugned order of acquittal.

7. Prosecution examined four witnesses and adduced as evidence four exhibits including the search warrant, seizure list, and petition of complaint. The list of prosecution witnesses are as follows :-

8. Learned Advocate for the State/appellant further submitted as follows:-

i. A s