Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Joydeep Goala – Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam through the Comm. and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam and Others – Respondent
WP(C) 6316/2018
Decided on : 29-8-2019
Penal Code – Section 498A – Code of Criminal Procedure – Sections 397, 401 – Order of Conviction – Challenged – Criminal revision petition, under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/victim, praying for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order, passed by Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Criminal Appeal acquitting the respondent No. 1 by setting aside the Judgment and Order of conviction, passed by the learned C.J.M., Barpeta in G.R. Case convicting him under Section 498A of the IPC – Held, Court finds no such patent illegality being committed while appreciating the evidence on record and pursuant thereto acquittal of the respondent No. 1 setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta – A perusal of the evidence on record, as discussed above, shows no credible consistency and no evidence of eye-witness of neighbours even in support of the allegations of cruelty – Prosecution appears to have failed to prove the allegation of cruelty, within the purview of Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt – Principles laid in the above judgments cited by the petitioner found to have not come to the help of the prosecutions case – Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. puts an embargo on the Revisional Court in converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction except when it is satisfied that the finding was apparently perverse and unjustified – Revision Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.:— Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D.K. Bhattacharjee and Mr. JUNM Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel and Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, Government of Assam for the respondents.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of entire sale proceeding including tender notice dated 27.08.2018 for sale/settlement of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit-II in the district of Cachar.
3. Case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an auction sale proceeding for sale/settlement of Chiri River Minor Minerals (Stone) Unit (briefly, the Mahal hereinafter) petitioner was settled with the said Mahal for a period of 7 years with effect from 01.09.2014 to 30.09.2021 vide settlement order dated 22.08.2014 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, i.e., respondent No. 4 at his offered bid value of Rs. 3,78,84,000.00. The settlement was for extraction of 84000 cubic meter of stone after obtaining clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
4. It is stated that petitioner had obtained necessary clearance and is now running the said Mahal by regularly depositing the kist money. However, petitioner is yet to extract about 50% of the allotted quantity of stone.
5. As per mining plan of the Chiri River Minor Minerals (Stone) Unit, total area of the Mahal is 13.5 hectares with clearly demarcated boundaries. The total length of the contract area is 12 kilometers downstream and the stone gravels are available for extraction from the river bed of Chiri river which originates from the hills of North Cachar Hills district.
6. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has now carved out a portion of the aforesaid Mahal under settlement with the petitioner during the subsistence of the settlement period on his own which he has named as the Chiri Stone Mahal Unit-II (in short, new Mahal). An advertisement was floated in the official website of the Forest Department, Govt. of Assam vide Auction No. 4, Dispatch No. B/5620-5629 dated 28.08.2018 for sale of the new Mahal for a period of 24 months for extraction of 50000 cubic meter of stone at the reserve price of Rs. 1,60,00,000.00 fixing 19.09.2019 as the last date for submission of tender and for opening of tender. Such advertisement was also published in the local newspaper ‘Samayik Prasanga’ on 27.08.2018.
7. Petitioner has stated that when he opened the website on 01.09.2018, he could not find the schedule of the new Mahal, besides there being no archived tender(s) available in the departmental website.
8. Contending that such auction of the new Mahal is illegal, there being no creation and notification of such new Mahal and that such new Mahal was nothing but carving out a portion of the Mahal already settled with the petitioner, he submitted representation before respondent No. 4 on 06.09.2018 requesting him not to proceed further with the auction sale of the new Mahal. Thereafter, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above.
9. This Court vide order dated 14.09.2018 had directed the respondents to file affidavit indicating the schedule/boundary of the new Mahal and also to indicate whether the new Mahal was part of the Mahal settled with the petitioner. As an interim measure, respondents were directed not to finalise the tender. Relevant portion of the order dated 14.09.2018 is extracted hereunder:—
“Petitioner was settled with the Chiri River Minor Mineral (Stone) Unit by the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar for a period of 7 years at the offer of Rs. 3,78,84,30.00 for the quantity of 84,000 m3 of stone vide the order dated 22.08.2014. It is contended that pursuant to such settlement, petitioner is operating the Chiri River Minor Mineral (Stone) Unit and the settlement is valid up
SupremeToday
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
